Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

jQuery(document).ready(function($){$("#isloaderfor-ecmokn").fadeOut(300, function () { $(".pagwrap-ecmokn").fadeIn(300);});}); Download the Report

While the UN Security Council and member states have elevated the protection of civilians (POC) and the primacy of politics as two central pillars of UN peacekeeping, it is not always clear how missions are expected to pursue these two sets of priorities together. To discuss the relationship between these pillars, IPI together with the Permanent Mission of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN cohosted a policy forum on December 8th, entitled “The Primacy of Politics and the Protection of Civilians in UN Peacekeeping.”

Support to political processes and the protection of civilians (POC) are the two most prominent mandated tasks for multidimensional UN peacekeeping operations, emphasized in recent independent reviews and elevated by member states and the Security Council. However, despite being foundational pillars to contemporary UN peacekeeping, it is not always clear how these two sets of priorities fit together in planning and operations. Policy guidance and independent reviews stress the need to link mission political priorities and protection, yet within missions, POC is often considered parallel to the mission’s political work and is not always effectively incorporated into the political vision for the mission.

The event examined how missions’ political and POC work are understood in relation to one another and considered opportunities for strengthening both formal and informal integration. This discussion focused primarily on opportunities to strengthen integration at the mission level, for example in planning and analysis, good offices and mediation, and local-level processes. It also considered challenges, such as when the host state is among the perpetrators of violence, when high levels of violence are ongoing, or when there is a lack of a formal political process. “State actors can be so diverse, and it is important to understand the breadth of actors you have to engage with, instead of painting the government with a broad brush,” said Regina Fitzpatrick, Protection of Civilians Team Leader in the Policy, Evaluation and Training Division, UN Department of Peace Operations. Speakers also reflected on the importance of clearly defining the meaning of political primacy, and the challenges of navigating both diplomacy and accountability.

The policy forum launched the IPI policy paper on the “The Protection of Civilians and the Primacy of Politics in UN Peacekeeping” written by Jenna Russo, Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations at IPI, and Ralph Mamiya, IPI Non-Resident Adviser. This event and publication are part of IPI’s broader workstream on Action for Peacekeeping+ (A4P+), funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

Opening Remarks:
Adam Lupel, Vice President and COO, International Peace Institute
H.E. Mark Zellenrath, Deputy Permanent Representative of the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the UN

Panelists:
Ralph Mamiya, Non-Resident Adviser, International Peace Institute
Kenny Gluck, Former Deputy Special Representative and Deputy Head of the UN Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA)
Wendy MacClinchy, Director of the United Nations program at Center for Civilians in Conflict
Regina Fitzpatrick, Protection of Civilians Team Leader, Policy, Evaluation and Training Division, UN Department of Peace Operations

Moderator:
Jenna Russo, Director of Research and Head of the Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations, International Peace Institute

The literature suggests that a first barrier towards accessing benefits of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries is lack of awareness of one’s benefits. Yet, across settings and emerging schemes, limited scientific evidence is available on levels of awareness and their determinants. To fill this gap, we assessed socio-demographic and economic determinants of beneficiaries’ awareness of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), the national health insurance scheme launched in India in 2018, and their awareness of own eligibility. We relied on cross-sectional household survey data collected in six Indian states between 2019 and 2020. Representative data of households eligible for PM-JAY from 11 618 respondents (an adult representative from each surveyed household) were used. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to explore the association between awareness of PM-JAY and of one’s own eligibility, and socio-economic and demographic characteristics. About 62% of respondents were aware of PM-JAY, and among the aware, 78% knew that they were eligible for the scheme. Regression analysis confirmed that older respondents with higher educational level and salaried jobs were more likely to know about PM-JAY. Awareness was lower among respondents from Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu. Respondents from other backward classes, of wealthier socio-economic status, or from Meghalaya or Gujarat were more likely to be aware of their eligibility status. Respondents from Chhattisgarh were less likely to know about their eligibility. Our study confirms that while more than half the eligible population was aware of PM-JAY, considerable efforts are needed to achieve universal awareness. Socio-economic gradients confirm that the more marginalized are still less aware. We recommend implementing tailored, state-specific information dissemination approaches focusing on knowledge of specific scheme features to empower beneficiaries to demand their entitled services.

The literature suggests that a first barrier towards accessing benefits of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries is lack of awareness of one’s benefits. Yet, across settings and emerging schemes, limited scientific evidence is available on levels of awareness and their determinants. To fill this gap, we assessed socio-demographic and economic determinants of beneficiaries’ awareness of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), the national health insurance scheme launched in India in 2018, and their awareness of own eligibility. We relied on cross-sectional household survey data collected in six Indian states between 2019 and 2020. Representative data of households eligible for PM-JAY from 11 618 respondents (an adult representative from each surveyed household) were used. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to explore the association between awareness of PM-JAY and of one’s own eligibility, and socio-economic and demographic characteristics. About 62% of respondents were aware of PM-JAY, and among the aware, 78% knew that they were eligible for the scheme. Regression analysis confirmed that older respondents with higher educational level and salaried jobs were more likely to know about PM-JAY. Awareness was lower among respondents from Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu. Respondents from other backward classes, of wealthier socio-economic status, or from Meghalaya or Gujarat were more likely to be aware of their eligibility status. Respondents from Chhattisgarh were less likely to know about their eligibility. Our study confirms that while more than half the eligible population was aware of PM-JAY, considerable efforts are needed to achieve universal awareness. Socio-economic gradients confirm that the more marginalized are still less aware. We recommend implementing tailored, state-specific information dissemination approaches focusing on knowledge of specific scheme features to empower beneficiaries to demand their entitled services.

The literature suggests that a first barrier towards accessing benefits of health insurance in low- and middle-income countries is lack of awareness of one’s benefits. Yet, across settings and emerging schemes, limited scientific evidence is available on levels of awareness and their determinants. To fill this gap, we assessed socio-demographic and economic determinants of beneficiaries’ awareness of the Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (PM-JAY), the national health insurance scheme launched in India in 2018, and their awareness of own eligibility. We relied on cross-sectional household survey data collected in six Indian states between 2019 and 2020. Representative data of households eligible for PM-JAY from 11 618 respondents (an adult representative from each surveyed household) were used. We used descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression models to explore the association between awareness of PM-JAY and of one’s own eligibility, and socio-economic and demographic characteristics. About 62% of respondents were aware of PM-JAY, and among the aware, 78% knew that they were eligible for the scheme. Regression analysis confirmed that older respondents with higher educational level and salaried jobs were more likely to know about PM-JAY. Awareness was lower among respondents from Meghalaya and Tamil Nadu. Respondents from other backward classes, of wealthier socio-economic status, or from Meghalaya or Gujarat were more likely to be aware of their eligibility status. Respondents from Chhattisgarh were less likely to know about their eligibility. Our study confirms that while more than half the eligible population was aware of PM-JAY, considerable efforts are needed to achieve universal awareness. Socio-economic gradients confirm that the more marginalized are still less aware. We recommend implementing tailored, state-specific information dissemination approaches focusing on knowledge of specific scheme features to empower beneficiaries to demand their entitled services.

In early 2022, Germany’s development minister Svenja Schulze announced the adoption of a feminist development policy. With this announcement, Germany joins a growing group of governments that have adopted or declared the adoption of an explicitly feminist perspective in their external policies. Drawing on these governments’ policies and the observations and recommendations by civil society and researchers, this Discussion Paper outlines ten key recommendations for Germany’s first feminist development policy. The first three recommendations focus on the conceptual foundation of the policy and lay out the importance of 1) an inclusive definition of gender, 2) a clarification of the feminist approach and the policy’s overall goal as well as 3) the need for an intersectional approach. The second set of recommendations concerns the implementation of the policy and stresses the importance of 4) a permanent cooperation with gender-focused and feminist organisations and 5) the necessity to increase funding for gender-related objectives in general and 6) for feminist organisations in particular. Further recommendations include 7) widening the range of sectors that target gender equality through a transformative approach and context-sensitive programming and by providing mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy’s goals, objectives and activities. The last three recommendations emphasise institutional aspects and the importance of 8) creating an institutional environment that best supports gender equality within the development ministry and its main implementing organisations, 9) the necessity of a coherent feminist approach between the different ministries, and 10) the importance of addressing possible challenges the ministry might face in the implementation of its feminist development policy.

In early 2022, Germany’s development minister Svenja Schulze announced the adoption of a feminist development policy. With this announcement, Germany joins a growing group of governments that have adopted or declared the adoption of an explicitly feminist perspective in their external policies. Drawing on these governments’ policies and the observations and recommendations by civil society and researchers, this Discussion Paper outlines ten key recommendations for Germany’s first feminist development policy. The first three recommendations focus on the conceptual foundation of the policy and lay out the importance of 1) an inclusive definition of gender, 2) a clarification of the feminist approach and the policy’s overall goal as well as 3) the need for an intersectional approach. The second set of recommendations concerns the implementation of the policy and stresses the importance of 4) a permanent cooperation with gender-focused and feminist organisations and 5) the necessity to increase funding for gender-related objectives in general and 6) for feminist organisations in particular. Further recommendations include 7) widening the range of sectors that target gender equality through a transformative approach and context-sensitive programming and by providing mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy’s goals, objectives and activities. The last three recommendations emphasise institutional aspects and the importance of 8) creating an institutional environment that best supports gender equality within the development ministry and its main implementing organisations, 9) the necessity of a coherent feminist approach between the different ministries, and 10) the importance of addressing possible challenges the ministry might face in the implementation of its feminist development policy.

In early 2022, Germany’s development minister Svenja Schulze announced the adoption of a feminist development policy. With this announcement, Germany joins a growing group of governments that have adopted or declared the adoption of an explicitly feminist perspective in their external policies. Drawing on these governments’ policies and the observations and recommendations by civil society and researchers, this Discussion Paper outlines ten key recommendations for Germany’s first feminist development policy. The first three recommendations focus on the conceptual foundation of the policy and lay out the importance of 1) an inclusive definition of gender, 2) a clarification of the feminist approach and the policy’s overall goal as well as 3) the need for an intersectional approach. The second set of recommendations concerns the implementation of the policy and stresses the importance of 4) a permanent cooperation with gender-focused and feminist organisations and 5) the necessity to increase funding for gender-related objectives in general and 6) for feminist organisations in particular. Further recommendations include 7) widening the range of sectors that target gender equality through a transformative approach and context-sensitive programming and by providing mechanisms to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the strategy’s goals, objectives and activities. The last three recommendations emphasise institutional aspects and the importance of 8) creating an institutional environment that best supports gender equality within the development ministry and its main implementing organisations, 9) the necessity of a coherent feminist approach between the different ministries, and 10) the importance of addressing possible challenges the ministry might face in the implementation of its feminist development policy.

Inequality is bad per se and has adverse effects, among other things, on economic development and the environment. It is also often argued that high and increasing inequalities put societies under stress, which increases the likelihood of social conflicts. However, the literature on this topic is scarce and some of the conclusions are not adequately supported by empirical evidence. This is mainly because there are different definitions and measurements of social cohesion. Moreover, some definitions of social cohesion incorporate inequality, thus making it impossible to examine how these two phenomena interact with one another.
This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion. To do so, it employs a recent definition of social cohesion provided by Leininger et al. (2021). According to this definition, social cohesion is composed of three core attributes, namely trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes are examined in two dimensions, namely the horizontal (relationship among individuals) and vertical (relationship between individuals and state institutions) dimensions of social cohesion.
This paper provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. We find that while inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. Moreover, we highlight the main pathways through which inequality could affect each of the three key attributes.
The empirical analysis focuses on Africa. While there is some work in this field in Europe and Asia, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been any related empirical work thus far that has focused on African countries. To measure the three attributes of social cohesion, we use a database generated by Leininger et al. (2021), which is based on data from Afrobarometer and the V-Dem Institute. Inequality is mainly measured by the Gini coefficient and data are sourced from the World Income Distribution dataset. As expected, our analysis shows that countries with higher inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, which is measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when we analyse the relationship between the Gini coefficient and the three attributes separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust (rho=0.25) compared with the other two attributes (both of which have a rho equal to approximately 0.1). Additional investigations point to substantially different results for the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion. Higher levels of inequality are associated with lower levels of horizontal trust and horizontal cooperation. On the other hand, higher levels of inequality are associated with higher levels of vertical trust and are essentially uncorrelated with vertical cooperation. These relationships remain substantially unchanged when we use measures of income inequality other than the Gini coefficient. Further analyses that aim to explain the puzzling results for the vertical dimension of social cohesion reveal that our findings are not clearly driven by trust in a specific institution and are also not an artefact of the specific data we used. Indeed, we obtain similar results using data from the World Values Survey. At the same time, it appears that the positive relationship between inequality and vertical trust is visible only among African countries, whereas it is not observed at the global level or for other regions. Further research is needed to confirm whether Africa is truly exceptional in this regard, and if so, why that may be the case.

Inequality is bad per se and has adverse effects, among other things, on economic development and the environment. It is also often argued that high and increasing inequalities put societies under stress, which increases the likelihood of social conflicts. However, the literature on this topic is scarce and some of the conclusions are not adequately supported by empirical evidence. This is mainly because there are different definitions and measurements of social cohesion. Moreover, some definitions of social cohesion incorporate inequality, thus making it impossible to examine how these two phenomena interact with one another.
This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion. To do so, it employs a recent definition of social cohesion provided by Leininger et al. (2021). According to this definition, social cohesion is composed of three core attributes, namely trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes are examined in two dimensions, namely the horizontal (relationship among individuals) and vertical (relationship between individuals and state institutions) dimensions of social cohesion.
This paper provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. We find that while inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. Moreover, we highlight the main pathways through which inequality could affect each of the three key attributes.
The empirical analysis focuses on Africa. While there is some work in this field in Europe and Asia, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been any related empirical work thus far that has focused on African countries. To measure the three attributes of social cohesion, we use a database generated by Leininger et al. (2021), which is based on data from Afrobarometer and the V-Dem Institute. Inequality is mainly measured by the Gini coefficient and data are sourced from the World Income Distribution dataset. As expected, our analysis shows that countries with higher inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, which is measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when we analyse the relationship between the Gini coefficient and the three attributes separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust (rho=0.25) compared with the other two attributes (both of which have a rho equal to approximately 0.1). Additional investigations point to substantially different results for the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion. Higher levels of inequality are associated with lower levels of horizontal trust and horizontal cooperation. On the other hand, higher levels of inequality are associated with higher levels of vertical trust and are essentially uncorrelated with vertical cooperation. These relationships remain substantially unchanged when we use measures of income inequality other than the Gini coefficient. Further analyses that aim to explain the puzzling results for the vertical dimension of social cohesion reveal that our findings are not clearly driven by trust in a specific institution and are also not an artefact of the specific data we used. Indeed, we obtain similar results using data from the World Values Survey. At the same time, it appears that the positive relationship between inequality and vertical trust is visible only among African countries, whereas it is not observed at the global level or for other regions. Further research is needed to confirm whether Africa is truly exceptional in this regard, and if so, why that may be the case.

Inequality is bad per se and has adverse effects, among other things, on economic development and the environment. It is also often argued that high and increasing inequalities put societies under stress, which increases the likelihood of social conflicts. However, the literature on this topic is scarce and some of the conclusions are not adequately supported by empirical evidence. This is mainly because there are different definitions and measurements of social cohesion. Moreover, some definitions of social cohesion incorporate inequality, thus making it impossible to examine how these two phenomena interact with one another.
This paper analyses both theoretically and empirically, the relationship between inequality and social cohesion. To do so, it employs a recent definition of social cohesion provided by Leininger et al. (2021). According to this definition, social cohesion is composed of three core attributes, namely trust, inclusive identity and cooperation for the common good. These attributes are examined in two dimensions, namely the horizontal (relationship among individuals) and vertical (relationship between individuals and state institutions) dimensions of social cohesion.
This paper provides an overview of the empirical evidence regarding the relationship between inequality and the three attributes of social cohesion. We find that while inequality is likely to have a negative effect on all three attributes, the intensity of the relationship may depend on some key mediating factors. Moreover, we highlight the main pathways through which inequality could affect each of the three key attributes.
The empirical analysis focuses on Africa. While there is some work in this field in Europe and Asia, to the best of our knowledge, there has not been any related empirical work thus far that has focused on African countries. To measure the three attributes of social cohesion, we use a database generated by Leininger et al. (2021), which is based on data from Afrobarometer and the V-Dem Institute. Inequality is mainly measured by the Gini coefficient and data are sourced from the World Income Distribution dataset. As expected, our analysis shows that countries with higher inequality usually have lower levels of social cohesion, which is measured by an aggregate index. This negative correlation holds when we analyse the relationship between the Gini coefficient and the three attributes separately; however, the intensity varies. It is stronger for trust (rho=0.25) compared with the other two attributes (both of which have a rho equal to approximately 0.1). Additional investigations point to substantially different results for the horizontal and vertical dimensions of social cohesion. Higher levels of inequality are associated with lower levels of horizontal trust and horizontal cooperation. On the other hand, higher levels of inequality are associated with higher levels of vertical trust and are essentially uncorrelated with vertical cooperation. These relationships remain substantially unchanged when we use measures of income inequality other than the Gini coefficient. Further analyses that aim to explain the puzzling results for the vertical dimension of social cohesion reveal that our findings are not clearly driven by trust in a specific institution and are also not an artefact of the specific data we used. Indeed, we obtain similar results using data from the World Values Survey. At the same time, it appears that the positive relationship between inequality and vertical trust is visible only among African countries, whereas it is not observed at the global level or for other regions. Further research is needed to confirm whether Africa is truly exceptional in this regard, and if so, why that may be the case.

Support to political processes and the protection of civilians (POC) are arguably the two most prominent mandated tasks for multidimensional UN peacekeeping operations. Policy guidance and independent reviews have made clear that politics and protection must be linked, yet within missions, POC is often considered in parallel to political work and is not always effectively incorporated into a political vision.

The purpose of this report is to examine how UN peacekeeping missions’ POC and political work are understood in relation to one another in terms of planning and operations and to consider opportunities for better integrating them, both formally and informally. The report begins by outlining the concept of political primacy and the elevation of POC within UN peacekeeping. It then provides an overview of entry points for better connecting missions’ political and POC work, including in mapping and analyses, planning and strategies, negotiated agreements, the creation of enabling environments, and local-level processes. The report then discusses various challenges and offers concluding recommendations.

The paper concludes with the following recommendations for member states, mission leadership, and other mission personnel to better integrate their POC and political work:

• Mapping and analysis: Mission leaders should ensure that mapping and analyses are conducted jointly by mission personnel working on POC and politics.
• Planning and strategies: Special representatives of the secretary-general (SRSGs) and headquarters should take ownership of, and clearly and consistently communicate to mission staff, mission concepts, mission plans, POC strategies, and political strategies. To better translate their strategic vision into actionable plans, mission leaders should also establish joint mission planning cells. Heads of POC and political components (or their equivalents) should anchor their individual strategies in the central mission concept, plan, or strategy to ensure all components are working toward a common goal.
• Negotiated agreements: During the lead-up to a formal negotiation process, SRSGs should advocate for POC. Mediators should also advocate for specific language on POC within negotiated agreements, including language on the protection of specific groups and protection from sexual and gender-based violence.
• Creating an enabling environment: Mission personnel in charge of planning and implementing POC should look for entry points to enhance the protection-participation nexus.
• Local-level processes: Senior mission leaders and member states should broaden their focus on the “political” beyond national-level formal processes to include the local level.

Download

Während die Ziele der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung universell sind, sind die Wege, die zu ihnen führen, vielfältig. Länder haben aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen biophysischen, sozio-ökonomischen und politisch-kulturellen Ausgangsbedingungen unterschiedliche Leitvorstellungen davon, wie die Ziele einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs) erreicht werden sollen, und sie verfügen über unterschiedliche Ansatzpunkte und Hebel hierfür. Nachhaltige Entwicklungspfade, die machbare und aus Sicht unterschiedlicher Akteure erstrebenswerte Wege zur Erreichung der Agenda 2030 und der Pariser Klimaziele beschreiben, müssen diese Faktoren und deren Vielfalt berücksichtigen. Es reicht daher nicht aus, nur eine einzige Pfadoption vorzuschlagen und deren potenzielle Wirkungen zu analysieren. Jeder dieser „nachhaltigen Entwicklungspfade“ erfordert zudem Transformationsprozesse, die einen disruptiven Paradigmenwechsel und einen tiefgreifenden gesellschaftlichen Wandel mit sich bringen. Es bedarf daher positiver, an unterschiedliche Gegebenheiten anknüpfende Leitvorstellungen (“Visionen”). Diese sind am ehesten in einer Kombination aus qualitativen Erzählungen oder Narrativen sowie darauf aufbauender, quantitativer Szenarien zu vermitteln. Analysen können dann die positiven Wechselwirkungen sowie mögliche Zielkonflikte zwischen den einzelnen SDGs und hierfür vorgesehenen Maßnahmen beschreiben und dazu beitragen, Synergien zu verstärken sowie wechselseitige Beeinträchtigungen oder Blockaden zu vermeiden oder zu minimieren.

Während die Ziele der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung universell sind, sind die Wege, die zu ihnen führen, vielfältig. Länder haben aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen biophysischen, sozio-ökonomischen und politisch-kulturellen Ausgangsbedingungen unterschiedliche Leitvorstellungen davon, wie die Ziele einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs) erreicht werden sollen, und sie verfügen über unterschiedliche Ansatzpunkte und Hebel hierfür. Nachhaltige Entwicklungspfade, die machbare und aus Sicht unterschiedlicher Akteure erstrebenswerte Wege zur Erreichung der Agenda 2030 und der Pariser Klimaziele beschreiben, müssen diese Faktoren und deren Vielfalt berücksichtigen. Es reicht daher nicht aus, nur eine einzige Pfadoption vorzuschlagen und deren potenzielle Wirkungen zu analysieren. Jeder dieser „nachhaltigen Entwicklungspfade“ erfordert zudem Transformationsprozesse, die einen disruptiven Paradigmenwechsel und einen tiefgreifenden gesellschaftlichen Wandel mit sich bringen. Es bedarf daher positiver, an unterschiedliche Gegebenheiten anknüpfende Leitvorstellungen (“Visionen”). Diese sind am ehesten in einer Kombination aus qualitativen Erzählungen oder Narrativen sowie darauf aufbauender, quantitativer Szenarien zu vermitteln. Analysen können dann die positiven Wechselwirkungen sowie mögliche Zielkonflikte zwischen den einzelnen SDGs und hierfür vorgesehenen Maßnahmen beschreiben und dazu beitragen, Synergien zu verstärken sowie wechselseitige Beeinträchtigungen oder Blockaden zu vermeiden oder zu minimieren.

Während die Ziele der Agenda 2030 für nachhaltige Entwicklung universell sind, sind die Wege, die zu ihnen führen, vielfältig. Länder haben aufgrund ihrer unterschiedlichen biophysischen, sozio-ökonomischen und politisch-kulturellen Ausgangsbedingungen unterschiedliche Leitvorstellungen davon, wie die Ziele einer nachhaltigen Entwicklung (Sustainable Development Goals – SDGs) erreicht werden sollen, und sie verfügen über unterschiedliche Ansatzpunkte und Hebel hierfür. Nachhaltige Entwicklungspfade, die machbare und aus Sicht unterschiedlicher Akteure erstrebenswerte Wege zur Erreichung der Agenda 2030 und der Pariser Klimaziele beschreiben, müssen diese Faktoren und deren Vielfalt berücksichtigen. Es reicht daher nicht aus, nur eine einzige Pfadoption vorzuschlagen und deren potenzielle Wirkungen zu analysieren. Jeder dieser „nachhaltigen Entwicklungspfade“ erfordert zudem Transformationsprozesse, die einen disruptiven Paradigmenwechsel und einen tiefgreifenden gesellschaftlichen Wandel mit sich bringen. Es bedarf daher positiver, an unterschiedliche Gegebenheiten anknüpfende Leitvorstellungen (“Visionen”). Diese sind am ehesten in einer Kombination aus qualitativen Erzählungen oder Narrativen sowie darauf aufbauender, quantitativer Szenarien zu vermitteln. Analysen können dann die positiven Wechselwirkungen sowie mögliche Zielkonflikte zwischen den einzelnen SDGs und hierfür vorgesehenen Maßnahmen beschreiben und dazu beitragen, Synergien zu verstärken sowie wechselseitige Beeinträchtigungen oder Blockaden zu vermeiden oder zu minimieren.

In September 2015, the international community adopted the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In doing so, all 193 UN member states signed off on 17 goals to promote socioeconomic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Earlier that same year, the Addis Ababa Action agenda for financing development had been adopted, while the close of the year saw the conclusion of the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet seven years on, the world is significantly off-track to achieving most of these goals, and multiple crises have led to a reversal of SDG progress. From the outset, Heads of State agreed that a number of countries each year (around 40) should present reports on their progress towards the SDGs, in so called ‘voluntary national reviews’ (VNRs) and that leaders would meet every four years to review global SDG progress and agree on a path forward. In July 2023, the EU is to present its first Union-wide voluntary review at the United Nations. This presents a good opportunity for the EU to send a strong message to the international community and to demonstrate its commitment to and leadership on the SDGs. A few months later, in September 2023, Heads of State will again meet under the auspices of the UN General Assembly in New York for the second SDG Summit (the first was held in 2019). Following the SDG Summit, the Summit of the Future, in September 2024, will debate and hopefully lead to the adoption of a Pact for the Future to include major reforms of multilateral institutions and sustainable development finance. This year’s Europe Sustainable Development Report (ESDR 2022) aims to support both of these processes and contribute to strengthening the EU’s SDG leadership at home and internationally.

In September 2015, the international community adopted the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In doing so, all 193 UN member states signed off on 17 goals to promote socioeconomic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Earlier that same year, the Addis Ababa Action agenda for financing development had been adopted, while the close of the year saw the conclusion of the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet seven years on, the world is significantly off-track to achieving most of these goals, and multiple crises have led to a reversal of SDG progress. From the outset, Heads of State agreed that a number of countries each year (around 40) should present reports on their progress towards the SDGs, in so called ‘voluntary national reviews’ (VNRs) and that leaders would meet every four years to review global SDG progress and agree on a path forward. In July 2023, the EU is to present its first Union-wide voluntary review at the United Nations. This presents a good opportunity for the EU to send a strong message to the international community and to demonstrate its commitment to and leadership on the SDGs. A few months later, in September 2023, Heads of State will again meet under the auspices of the UN General Assembly in New York for the second SDG Summit (the first was held in 2019). Following the SDG Summit, the Summit of the Future, in September 2024, will debate and hopefully lead to the adoption of a Pact for the Future to include major reforms of multilateral institutions and sustainable development finance. This year’s Europe Sustainable Development Report (ESDR 2022) aims to support both of these processes and contribute to strengthening the EU’s SDG leadership at home and internationally.

In September 2015, the international community adopted the 2030 Agenda and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In doing so, all 193 UN member states signed off on 17 goals to promote socioeconomic prosperity and environmental sustainability. Earlier that same year, the Addis Ababa Action agenda for financing development had been adopted, while the close of the year saw the conclusion of the Paris Climate Agreement. Yet seven years on, the world is significantly off-track to achieving most of these goals, and multiple crises have led to a reversal of SDG progress. From the outset, Heads of State agreed that a number of countries each year (around 40) should present reports on their progress towards the SDGs, in so called ‘voluntary national reviews’ (VNRs) and that leaders would meet every four years to review global SDG progress and agree on a path forward. In July 2023, the EU is to present its first Union-wide voluntary review at the United Nations. This presents a good opportunity for the EU to send a strong message to the international community and to demonstrate its commitment to and leadership on the SDGs. A few months later, in September 2023, Heads of State will again meet under the auspices of the UN General Assembly in New York for the second SDG Summit (the first was held in 2019). Following the SDG Summit, the Summit of the Future, in September 2024, will debate and hopefully lead to the adoption of a Pact for the Future to include major reforms of multilateral institutions and sustainable development finance. This year’s Europe Sustainable Development Report (ESDR 2022) aims to support both of these processes and contribute to strengthening the EU’s SDG leadership at home and internationally.

Bonn, 5. Dezember 2022. Vom 7. bis zum 19. Dezember 2022 wird die 15. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (COP) des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt (CBD) im kanadischen Montreal unter dem Vorsitz von China stattfinden. Trotz der schwierigen geopolitischen Weltlage wird erwartet, dass sich die Regierungen auf ein neues „globales Rahmenabkommen für Biodiversität“ (GBF) einigen werden. Viele Beobachter*innen hoffen auf eine bahnbrechende Vereinbarung zum Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt. Manche sprechen gar von der „letzten Chance für die Natur“.

Der aktuelle Entwurf des GBF steht ganz im Zeichen der Agenda 2030 und des Pariser Abkommens, fordert er doch einen Wandel in den „Beziehungen der Gesellschaften zur biologischen Vielfalt“. Die zugehörige Erklärung von Kunming, die auf der ersten Sitzung der COP15 im Oktober 2021 in China verabschiedet wurde, betont die Notwendigkeit eines „transformativen Wandels in allen Wirtschaftssektoren und allen Teilen der Gesellschaft“ und die „Sicherstellung von Nachhaltigkeit in Produktion und Konsum“. Es scheint, dass Regierungen zunehmend anerkennen, was Wissenschaftler*innen und Umweltaktivist*innen schon seit Jahrzehnten fordern: Wir müssen aus nicht nachhaltigen Formen der Produktion und des Konsums aussteigen.

Viele politische Entscheidungsträger*innen, NGOs und Naturschützer*innen sind sich zwar einig, dass tiefgreifender Wandel notwendig ist – doch der Entwurf des GBFs spiegelt dies nur in Teilen wieder. Das GBF zeichnet sich überwiegend, wie viele multilaterale UN-Dokumente auch, durch technokratische Vorgaben und Zielen aus. Das mag viele Experten*innen nicht überraschen, doch ist dies eine der wesentlichen Schwächen des künftigen GBF. Die politische Ökonomie des Naturschutzes bleibt weitestgehend außen vor. Regierungen sollten aus unserer Sicht die progressiven Elemente der Erklärung von Kunming ernst nehmen und anerkennen, dass wir eine sozial-ökologische Transformation benötigen, um den Verlust von Biodiversität zu stoppen. Wenn wir unser aktuelles Wirtschaftssystem nicht grundsätzlich infrage stellen, bleibt der Erfolg des neuen GBF höchst unwahrscheinlich.

Die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse sind eindeutig, alarmierend und enttäuschend. Trotz einer wachsenden Zahl von Schutzgebieten und marktorientierter Naturschutzinstrumente ist die biologische Vielfalt seit 1970 weltweit um 68 Prozent zurückgegangen. Dennoch bleibt unendliches Wirtschaftswachstum das vorherrschende Paradigma – den verheerenden Auswirkungen auf die Ökosysteme zum Trotz. Darüber hinaus machen komplexe Wertschöpfungsketten und die damit verbundene Trennung der Produktion (z.B. Holzeinschlag im Regenwald) vom Konsum, das Artensterben in unserem täglichen Leben schwer greifbar. Die Verluste finden anderswo statt und bleiben für uns unsichtbar.

Nichtmenschliche Lebewesen sind nicht Teil unserer „communities of justice“ (Gerechtigkeitsgemeinschaften). Sie sind meist nur dann relevant, wenn sie unseren Interessen dienen (z.B. als Nahrung oder zur Bestäubung), als Faktoren von Kosten-Nutzen-Rechnungen und im Rahmen von vorgeschriebenen Kompensationsmaßnahmen, etwa bei großen Infrastrukturprojekten. So warf eine große deutsche Tageszeitung Gegner*innen der Elbvertiefung und des Ausbaus der Fahrrinne einst vor, dass sie gefährdeten Arten wie dem Schierlings Wasserfenchel mehr Wert beimessen würden als Arbeitsplätzen und Steuereinnahmen. Der Schutz der Artenvielfalt scheint also nur solange erwünscht, wenn er sich nicht auf unsere Volkswirtschaften auswirkt. Hier stellt sich folglich die Frage: Wie viele Arbeitsplätze ist uns das Aussterben von Arten wert?

Was ist nötig, um den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt zu stoppen und den Trend umzukehren? Was müssen wir tun, um das neue GBF erfolgreich umzusetzen? Zunächst müssen wir anerkennen, dass unser Wirtschaftssystem und sein inhärentes und permanentes Streben nach Expansion zu einer verstärkten Ressourcennutzung, zur Zerstörung von Lebensräumen und zum Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt führt. Folglich erfordert das GBF eine sozial-ökologische Transformation hin zu einer Wirtschaft, die ohne permanentes Wachstum von Produktion und Konsum auskommt. Das Wirtschaften in einer solchen Gesellschaft sollte nicht der Kapitalakkumulation dienen, sondern einen Zustand anstreben, in dem Wohlstand und eine intakte biologische Vielfalt vereinbar sind. Dies erfordert eine durchschnittliche Verringerung der Produktion und des Konsums in einigen Wirtschaftssektoren, während es in Bereichen wie erneuerbare Energien, Bildung, Gesundheit und Pflege Wachstum erfordert. Ein solcher Wandel würde dem Wohlergehen der Menschen, dem Bewahren der biologischen Vielfalt, Vorrang vor Kapitalakkumulation und Profit einräumen. So könnten wir einige der Ursachen für den Verlust der Artenvielfalt aus dem Weg räumen.

Zweitens müssen wir beim Schutz der Biodiversität neue Ansätze verfolgen, die über marktorientierte Instrumente, Kosten-Nutzen-Ansätze und Schutzgebiete, die den Menschen getrennt von der Natur betrachten, hinausgehen. Schutzstrategien sollten die Rolle indigener Gruppen und lokaler Gemeinschaften anerkennen und jene Akteur*innen unterstützen, die seit Jahrhunderten zur Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt beitragen. Ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen für den Naturschutz ist hier ein vielversprechendes Instrument. Es würde Menschen zugutekommen, die in Gebieten leben, in denen dem Erhalt der Biodiversität eine große Rolle zukommt. Die Zahlungen würden die Grundbedürfnisse indigener Gruppen und lokaler Gemeinschaften (IPLC) decken. Sie können außerdem als eine Form der „Wiedergutmachung“ für IPLCs angesehen werden, da sie im Zuge der Einrichtung neuer Schutzgebiete häufig von ihrem traditionellen Land vertrieben wurden.

Bonn, 5. Dezember 2022. Vom 7. bis zum 19. Dezember 2022 wird die 15. Vertragsstaatenkonferenz (COP) des Übereinkommens über die biologische Vielfalt (CBD) im kanadischen Montreal unter dem Vorsitz von China stattfinden. Trotz der schwierigen geopolitischen Weltlage wird erwartet, dass sich die Regierungen auf ein neues „globales Rahmenabkommen für Biodiversität“ (GBF) einigen werden. Viele Beobachter*innen hoffen auf eine bahnbrechende Vereinbarung zum Schutz der biologischen Vielfalt. Manche sprechen gar von der „letzten Chance für die Natur“.

Der aktuelle Entwurf des GBF steht ganz im Zeichen der Agenda 2030 und des Pariser Abkommens, fordert er doch einen Wandel in den „Beziehungen der Gesellschaften zur biologischen Vielfalt“. Die zugehörige Erklärung von Kunming, die auf der ersten Sitzung der COP15 im Oktober 2021 in China verabschiedet wurde, betont die Notwendigkeit eines „transformativen Wandels in allen Wirtschaftssektoren und allen Teilen der Gesellschaft“ und die „Sicherstellung von Nachhaltigkeit in Produktion und Konsum“. Es scheint, dass Regierungen zunehmend anerkennen, was Wissenschaftler*innen und Umweltaktivist*innen schon seit Jahrzehnten fordern: Wir müssen aus nicht nachhaltigen Formen der Produktion und des Konsums aussteigen.

Viele politische Entscheidungsträger*innen, NGOs und Naturschützer*innen sind sich zwar einig, dass tiefgreifender Wandel notwendig ist – doch der Entwurf des GBFs spiegelt dies nur in Teilen wieder. Das GBF zeichnet sich überwiegend, wie viele multilaterale UN-Dokumente auch, durch technokratische Vorgaben und Zielen aus. Das mag viele Experten*innen nicht überraschen, doch ist dies eine der wesentlichen Schwächen des künftigen GBF. Die politische Ökonomie des Naturschutzes bleibt weitestgehend außen vor. Regierungen sollten aus unserer Sicht die progressiven Elemente der Erklärung von Kunming ernst nehmen und anerkennen, dass wir eine sozial-ökologische Transformation benötigen, um den Verlust von Biodiversität zu stoppen. Wenn wir unser aktuelles Wirtschaftssystem nicht grundsätzlich infrage stellen, bleibt der Erfolg des neuen GBF höchst unwahrscheinlich.

Die wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse sind eindeutig, alarmierend und enttäuschend. Trotz einer wachsenden Zahl von Schutzgebieten und marktorientierter Naturschutzinstrumente ist die biologische Vielfalt seit 1970 weltweit um 68 Prozent zurückgegangen. Dennoch bleibt unendliches Wirtschaftswachstum das vorherrschende Paradigma – den verheerenden Auswirkungen auf die Ökosysteme zum Trotz. Darüber hinaus machen komplexe Wertschöpfungsketten und die damit verbundene Trennung der Produktion (z.B. Holzeinschlag im Regenwald) vom Konsum, das Artensterben in unserem täglichen Leben schwer greifbar. Die Verluste finden anderswo statt und bleiben für uns unsichtbar.

Nichtmenschliche Lebewesen sind nicht Teil unserer „communities of justice“ (Gerechtigkeitsgemeinschaften). Sie sind meist nur dann relevant, wenn sie unseren Interessen dienen (z.B. als Nahrung oder zur Bestäubung), als Faktoren von Kosten-Nutzen-Rechnungen und im Rahmen von vorgeschriebenen Kompensationsmaßnahmen, etwa bei großen Infrastrukturprojekten. So warf eine große deutsche Tageszeitung Gegner*innen der Elbvertiefung und des Ausbaus der Fahrrinne einst vor, dass sie gefährdeten Arten wie dem Schierlings Wasserfenchel mehr Wert beimessen würden als Arbeitsplätzen und Steuereinnahmen. Der Schutz der Artenvielfalt scheint also nur solange erwünscht, wenn er sich nicht auf unsere Volkswirtschaften auswirkt. Hier stellt sich folglich die Frage: Wie viele Arbeitsplätze ist uns das Aussterben von Arten wert?

Was ist nötig, um den Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt zu stoppen und den Trend umzukehren? Was müssen wir tun, um das neue GBF erfolgreich umzusetzen? Zunächst müssen wir anerkennen, dass unser Wirtschaftssystem und sein inhärentes und permanentes Streben nach Expansion zu einer verstärkten Ressourcennutzung, zur Zerstörung von Lebensräumen und zum Verlust der biologischen Vielfalt führt. Folglich erfordert das GBF eine sozial-ökologische Transformation hin zu einer Wirtschaft, die ohne permanentes Wachstum von Produktion und Konsum auskommt. Das Wirtschaften in einer solchen Gesellschaft sollte nicht der Kapitalakkumulation dienen, sondern einen Zustand anstreben, in dem Wohlstand und eine intakte biologische Vielfalt vereinbar sind. Dies erfordert eine durchschnittliche Verringerung der Produktion und des Konsums in einigen Wirtschaftssektoren, während es in Bereichen wie erneuerbare Energien, Bildung, Gesundheit und Pflege Wachstum erfordert. Ein solcher Wandel würde dem Wohlergehen der Menschen, dem Bewahren der biologischen Vielfalt, Vorrang vor Kapitalakkumulation und Profit einräumen. So könnten wir einige der Ursachen für den Verlust der Artenvielfalt aus dem Weg räumen.

Zweitens müssen wir beim Schutz der Biodiversität neue Ansätze verfolgen, die über marktorientierte Instrumente, Kosten-Nutzen-Ansätze und Schutzgebiete, die den Menschen getrennt von der Natur betrachten, hinausgehen. Schutzstrategien sollten die Rolle indigener Gruppen und lokaler Gemeinschaften anerkennen und jene Akteur*innen unterstützen, die seit Jahrhunderten zur Erhaltung der biologischen Vielfalt beitragen. Ein bedingungsloses Grundeinkommen für den Naturschutz ist hier ein vielversprechendes Instrument. Es würde Menschen zugutekommen, die in Gebieten leben, in denen dem Erhalt der Biodiversität eine große Rolle zukommt. Die Zahlungen würden die Grundbedürfnisse indigener Gruppen und lokaler Gemeinschaften (IPLC) decken. Sie können außerdem als eine Form der „Wiedergutmachung“ für IPLCs angesehen werden, da sie im Zuge der Einrichtung neuer Schutzgebiete häufig von ihrem traditionellen Land vertrieben wurden.