The world in 2050: Policy options to meet global challenges

First published on the Euforic Blog

Based on two studies addressing world development for the coming 50-100 years – the UN Millennium Assessment (MEA) and an analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) supporting the G8 Gleneagles plans (see the presentation) – a new DIE Discussion Paper provides a critical appraisal of the scenario studies and singles out factors which are important for future development policy.

The MEA study suggests four scenarios, described by their position in a 2×2 matrix with the characteristics pro-active / reactive policy and globalized / regionalized policy at the x-y axes. The scenarios explain the possible developments determined by the policy choices made until the year 2050 and beyond that until 2100. They identify different drivers which directly or indirectly influence future development. They speak about the climate, plant nutrient use, land conversion, diseases and invasive species as having a direct effect on the scenarios. Further the demographic, economic and socio-political development as well as the scientific and technological progress is described as indirect factors.

The MEA study makes it very clear that climate change is going to be the primary factor:

“given that climate change – which is primarily driven by energy-related Green House Gas emissions – is very likely to be the predominant force adversely affecting ecosystems over the course of the 21st century, discrete policy efforts to preserve ecosystems in the absence of decisive global climate change mitigation action would seem to be as useful as re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.”

All but one scenarios will bring considerable improvements for world climate with different effects on human welfare. However compared to the reference year 2000 they all expect continued loss of biodiversity and degradation of ecosystems. To name just a few figures dependent on the policy choices:

• demand for food crops is projected to grow by 75-85%
• water withdrawals increase by 20-85%

Continued conversions of ecosystems are consequently caused by the pressure to meet agricultural and/or infrastructural demands. Mostly affected will be developing countries, in particular tropical and sub-tropical regions, the study predicts.

“The combination of exposure to an already fragile environment, dominance of climate-sensitive sectors in economic activity and low autonomous adaptive capacity in these regions entail a high vulnerability to the harmful effects of global warming on agriculture production and food security, water resources, human health, physical infrastructure and ecosystems.”

According to the author this requires the full integration of environmental concerns into the formulation of future development strategies. Nonetheless a recent WWF review of integrated water resource management in EC development programming showed that this is done on the level of policy formulation but is inadequately implemented in policy action. The message of the scenarios for policymakers is that although upcoming challenges are serious, policy options still exists.

“If decisive and proactive action is taken, the challenges are manageable without dramatic implications for growth aspirations of developing and developed countries. The task ahead for development policy is to assist in translating this message into concrete action.”

 See the Euforic bookmarks on climate change and environment and development cooperation

See also our newsfeeds on water and sanition, energy and food security

 

Germany’s Middle East and North Africa policy: interests, strategies, options

First published on the Euforic Blog

Talking of German interests in the Middle East and North Africa is frowned upon in German policy circles. Preferred is a reference to the normative power and Germany’s role in the European Union. Authors of a recent publication (pdf in German) of the German Institute for International Politics and Security are convinced that interests and policy targets need to be made clear and should be embedded in a long-term regional strategy. The study includes articles dealing with Israel and Palestine, Iraq, the Gulf Cooperation Council member states, Iran and the Maghreb as well as with the cross-cutting issues energy, migration and terrorism.

In her contribution about the Maghreb, Isabelle Werenfels writes about a region which was marginalized in German foreign policy until questions of energy security, terrorism and migration appeared on the policy agenda. She concludes that a regional strategy is not existent. Instead, Germany is dealing with each country bilaterally and further actively contributes to the European Mediterranean Policy. The Solar Energy Plan of the EU which was initiated by Germany provides opportunities for a more intensified cooperation.

Steffen Angenendt writes about the pressure caused by irregular and illegal migration from and within the Middle East and North Africa. He calls on the Europeans to take a closer look at migration flows within these regions which are a threat to regional stability. Angenendt also criticizes the European asylum restrictions which make it almost impossible to get refugee status and leaves illegal migration as the only option.

Guido Steinberg summarizes that the greatest German concerns in the Middle East and North Africa are the regional conflicts between Israel and Palestine and the hegemony struggle between Iraq, Iran and Saudi-Arabia. It is in Germany’s interest to maintain and improve regional stability. However, this should not lead to the acceptance of autocratic regimes as the best of two evils. It means strengthening democratic change and social transformation processes which are needed to achieve sustainable development. If no room for democratic opposition will be given new conflicts and terrorism will be the consequence.

The appearance of new actors like Russia, China or India as new potential partners for the region without a democratization agenda makes it difficult for Germany and Europe to insist on democratic reforms. Therefore Steinberg makes a plea for an active German role to solve the refugee crisis in the region which will help to overcome the humanitarian drama, minimize the conflict risk and bring valuable influence on the new elite of the region once the refugees return.

by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier for more on Germany’s cooperation policy.

Subscribe to the Euforic EU Neighbourhood Policy newsfeed for more on Europe’s policy towards its neighbours in Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

 

Civil-military relations in peace operations: the Danish experience

First published on the Euforic Blog

It is common sense that armed conflicts can not be overcome by military means alone. There is the need to find ways to combine civil and military instruments in peace operations. However concepts to approaches of civil-military cooperation are diverse and common language or definitions to understand them need to be found.

A Synthesis Report of the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS) combines the work of DIIS and partner organisations looking at civil-military engagement within Danish missions in Iraq (see separate study) and Afghanistan (see separate study). The report looks at the coherence challenge within and between Danish institutions involved, harmonization efforts with other international players, as well as at the alignment with local and national actors.

It recommends to increase sharing of analyses, lessons-learned and the development of common guidelines for civil-military relations, including standards for civil-military monitoring and evaluations. With regard to the host nation and local level the challenge remains to use local knowledge effectively. Additionally the linkages between national and regional levels need more attention. Furthermore understanding local perceptions of security and the protection of the population need higher priority. The report also makes very specific recommendations regarding the Danish institutional set-up and policy framework.

The synthesis report is part of DIIS research on ‘Civil-Military Relations within International Peace Operations’ with publications also concerning other European countries. See also for example: ‘Integrated National Approaches to International Operations. The cases of Denmark, UK and the Netherlands‘.

by Martin Behrens

See the Euforic newsfeed and dossier on peace and security

As well as ICCO on Democratization and Peacebuilding

 

ÖFSE on New Private and State Donors

First published on the Euforic Blog

A recent Working Paper (pdf in German) of the Austrian Development Research Institute (ÖFSE) looks at the discourse on the ‘New Donors’ in development cooperation and assesses the impact of these new private and state actors on the global aid and governance system.

While the traditional (Western based) donors refer to the OECD indicators to describe and legitimize their aid, new donors have a rather different attitude towards these standards. This is ranking from a more or less loose reference (i.e. new European Member states or Israel) to clear opposition (i.e. China, India or Russia) to what is seen as a Western dominated system.

This is even amplified by their unclear role in the global aid and governance system. China or India, the biggest new state donors, both still have to deal with severe internal development problems while at the same time acting as donors in Asia and Africa.

Additionally these countries can no longer be ignored by global governance arrangements taking into account their rise as global economic players. Combining cheap labor with a high investment in R&D they also show new success strategies for economic development.

Last but not least the connection of economic interests with development programs poses additional challenges for the traditional aid system. This makes it difficult to analyse the real impact of the new actors.

Nonetheless the authors predict that the OECD paradigm regarding the definitions, categories and practices of aid can no longer be maintained in the future without taking into account the new donors’ activities.

The paper also looks at the increasing private engagement in development. According to the World Bank private foundations contributed 5 to 7 Billion $-US in 2006 compared to 104 Billion $-US ODA. However, considering the stagnating public aid figures and the growing private investments there is a great awareness of these private activities.

The authors see the political and economic independence with a possibility for long-term engagement, the willingness to take higher risks compared to state actors, and the professionalization of private donors as rather positive.

Their low experience in the field, their tendency to combine aid with public relations strategies can be seen as a challenge for the future. Furthermore the paper criticizes that money is not always spend were most needed which might have a negative influence on policy prioritisation in aid-dependent countries. This can result in a withdraw of resources from one sector in support of the sector prioritized by the private donor (i.e. personnel from basic health care to HIV/AIDS).

The authors conclude that more research is needed to assess the real impact of new private and state donors on the global development agenda.

See also EADI’s EDC2020 project on the New Drivers in Development Cooperation