Search

Begin New Search Topic Development Political Geography Global Focus Content Type Policy Brief

1. Multilateral development banks are key to unlocking low-carbon investments in developing economies

Author:
Steven Fries
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics
Abstract:
Over the next three decades, emerging markets and developing economies (EMDEs), and especially middle-income countries, are projected to account for much of the growth in global economic activity and energy use. While a decisive move to low-carbon technologies and energy efficiency would advance both their development goals and a stable climate, the countries have yet to fully tap this opportunity. The multilateral development banks (MDBs) are in a unique position to help lower barriers to low-carbon investments in EMDEs and unlock these sustainable development opportunities. Their differentiating governance, financial and technical capabilities, and financing instruments would enable MDBs to support the necessary business environment and energy reforms and to cofinance low-carbon and energy efficiency investments alongside other investors to reduce and manage risks.
Topic:
Development, Economy, Multilateralism, Investment, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Climate Change Mitigation for Late Industrialisers: The Role of Technology Intensity in Manufacturing

Author:
Elvis Korku Avenyo and Fiona Tregenna
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Centre for Business and Development Studies (CBDS), Copenhagen Business School
Abstract:
Many developing countries now have a renewed focus on industrialisation and industrial policy. This is based on the recognition that industrialisation is a key driver of long-term economic progress and is the central route to improve the well-being of citizens in developing countries (Chenery, 1955; Tregenna, 2016; United Nations Industrial Development Organization [UNIDO], 2016). At the same time, the climate crisis poses an existential threat to the global economy and to humanity and has emerged as a challenge to the industrial development prospects and pathways of developing countries. This is because industrialisation is an important contributor to global warming, specifically to anthropogenic emissions of cardon dioxide (CO2.) (Adom et al., 2012; Han & Chatterjee, 1997). Late industrialisers thus face a dual challenge: industrialising while mitigating climate change (Altenburg & Rodrik, 2017). Hence, there is now a degree of tension as to how late industrialisers can achieve long-term economic development under paths involving heavy or intensive industrialisation, while mitigating emissions and environmental damage more broadly. An emerging discourse recognises the critical need for developing countries to push towards industrial development that, while generating growth in productivity and jobs, is also environmentally sustainable. This is especially important, as poorer countries are particularly vulnerable to the immediate effects of the climate crisis (Altenburg & Rodrik, 2017; Padilla, 2017). Thus, transforming towards sustainable production systems and green industrial policies offers developing countries opportunities to industrialise in an environmentally sustainable way while contributing to job creation and economic prosperity (Altenburg & Rodrik, 2017; Padilla, 2017; Rodrik, 2014). However, the high ‘green premia’ and new access barriers to the ‘green’ energy technologies from advanced economies directly threaten this potential sustainable industrial development pathway in developing countries.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Science and Technology, Manufacturing, Industrialization, Sustainability, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Global Focus

3. Financing Loss and Damage at Scale: Toward a Mosaic Approach

Author:
Michael Franczak
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
The historic decision on loss and damage (L&D) at the 2022 UN Climate Change Conference (COP27) calls for a new fund and funding arrangements focused on addressing L&D. It also tasks a Transitional Committee to prepare recommendations on the new fund and funding arrangements for adoption at the 2023 UN Climate Change Conference (COP28) in Dubai. This decision reflects a recognition that existing funding arrangements are grossly inadequate to address the escalating scale of L&D. Addressing L&D will require both enhancing these existing arrangements and creating a new fund and funding arrangements, forming a mosaic of solutions across countries, institutions, and markets. This paper aims to aid the Transitional Committee and other stakeholders by providing an initial sketch of that mosaic. First, it examines existing arrangements, modalities, and sources of funding for addressing L&D from UN humanitarian agencies, multilateral development banks and international financial institutions, and insurance and bond markets. Second, it proposes reforms to existing arrangements that would address key finance gaps and bottlenecks. Third, it identifies elements of a new L&D fund that would complement existing arrangements and make use of innovative finance (including levies and bond issuances) to operate at scale. With roughly six months left until COP28, the Transitional Committee will need to work efficiently to achieve its mandate, which includes determining the fund’s institutional arrangements, modalities, structure, governance, sources of funding, and coordination and complementarity with existing funding arrangements. To this end, the paper recommends that it should: Begin securing financing before COP28, particularly innovative financing, which takes longer to secure than traditional donor contributions; Consult with the private sector to determine its role, including in the use of insurance mechanisms and risk pools, frontloading, and connections between L&D and jobs; Determine the form and role of triggers, including for slow-onset events; Consider how to address noneconomic losses, including displacement and forced migration; and Identify the actions, mechanisms, and institutions required to operationalize the fund, including an internal or external coordination mechanism.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, United Nations, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

4. Global Inequality in Well‐​Being Has Decreased across Many Dimensions: Introducing the Inequality of Human Progress Index

Author:
Chelsea Follett and Vincent Geloso
Publication Date:
06-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
The Cato Institute
Abstract:
The world has seen dramatic, global human progress across a broad range of indicators in recent decades, but have those gains been widely shared? The Inequality of Human Progress Index (IHPI) measures relative gaps in global development. It surveys international inequality across a greater number of dimensions than any prior index. By analyzing inequality in a multidimensional way, the IHPI takes inequality more seriously than those indexes that focus on income inequality alone. The IHPI considers material well‐​being and seven additional metrics: lifespan, infant mortality, adequate nutrition, environmental safety, access to opportunity (as measured by education), access to information (as measured by internet access), and political freedom. Across all but two of those dimensions, the world has become more equal since 1990. Globalization and market liberalization over the past few decades have not only raised absolute living standards but also reduced overall inequality.
Topic:
Development, Inequality, Economy, and Well-Being
Political Geography:
Global Focus

5. Security professionals are changing how humanitarian organisations operate

Author:
Jethro Norman
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) created the first position solely dedicated to security in 1991, but for the next decade it was rare for humanitarian organisations to embed security professionals. After the 2003 Canal Hotel bombing in Baghdad in which the UN’s special representative in Iraq was killed, the United Nations Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS) was established. However, attacks on aid workers increased throughout the 2000s in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Humanitarian organisations invested more in their security in response to these threats, as well as changing norms around humanitarian liability. In 2015, in a landmark ruling, an aid worker successfully sued the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) for gross negligence. In response, donors implemented increasingly stringent insurance protocols, and the demand for humanitarian security professionals continued to grow. Today, virtually every international humanitarian organisation operating in an insecure region employs an international security professional, typically from a western military, police or private security background. Insights from long-term fieldwork with security contractors and aid workers in Sub-Saharan Africa (including Somalia, Kenya, South Sudan and Tanzania) shows that this has resulted in friction between the two groups, especially in relation to access and liability. In recent years, several developments have streng- thened the authority of security professionals over humanitarian staff. First, digital technologies have been increasingly used for information gathering, monitoring of staff and remote management. Second, as humanitarian security has become more structured and coordinated, new international organisations have emerged whose sole purpose is to provide security services to humanitarian clients. Whilst sometimes registered as non-profits, their function is not dissimilar to commercial private security companies, raising important questions about how the information they gather may be used beyond humanitarian purposes.
Topic:
Security, Development, Humanitarian Aid, and Humanitarian Organizations
Political Geography:
Global Focus

6. Getting global development back on track: Focus and start at home

Author:
Erwin van Veen
Publication Date:
02-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Clingendael Netherlands Institute of International Relations
Abstract:
Since 2019, realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has gone from patchy to off-track as a result of Covid-19, global price shocks caused by the war in Ukraine and accelerating climate change. About 100 million people were thrown back into extreme poverty and hundreds of millions more face reduced health, livelihood and income prospects for the rest of their lives. The climate change agenda also took a backseat. Long-term global effects will be profound in terms of growing migration flows, further climate degradation and, likely, more conflict, authoritarianism and populism. Putting global development back on track requires focusing on fewer priorities rather than the entire SDG agenda, namely those with the highest negative impact on developing countries: conflict, climate change and inequality. Addressing these problems primarily requires middle- and high-income countries to reduce their contribution to climate deterioration and inequality at home, and to increase their support for conflict resolution efforts elsewhere at a faster rate. While it may seem counterintuitive, the greatest development contributions that developed countries can make lie at home.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, and Sustainable Development Goals
Political Geography:
Global Focus

7. Migration in the Context of Climate Foreign Policy

Author:
Kira Vinke, Hannes Einsporn, Dana Schirwon, and Mahalia Thomas
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Council on Foreign Relations (DGAP)
Abstract:
Migration, displacement and resettlement in the context of climate change are not distant scenarios of the future, but are now materializing along increasingly severe extreme events and slow-onset degradation. In view of accelerating global warming and the danger of crossing tipping points in the Earth system, forward-looking climate foreign policy and development policy should increasingly focus on severe climate impacts.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Climate Change, Development, and Migration
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

8. Policy Papers by Women of Color: Decolonizing International Development

Author:
Tamara White, Aisha White, Gabrielle B. Gueye, Daniet Moges, and Eliza Gueye
Publication Date:
02-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Women of Color Advancing Peace, Security and Conflict Transformation (WCAPS)
Abstract:
This series explores a handful of scenarios where colonial legacies surface in international development and humanitarian aid work, from staffing and institution building to food aid and global tourism. Exploring these topics and seeking to deconstruct the systems and structures that impede success in development and humanitarian efforts is critically important in ensuring that we ultimately meet global goals and restore integrity to our sector. Many believe international development and humanitarian aid are irreconcilable and that this work is an extension of colonialism, but our constituency believes that there is hope in transforming the sector and shifting power to those who should rightfully own this work and reap the benefits of development.
Topic:
Development, Humanitarian Aid, Tourism, Culture, Neoliberalism, Decolonization, Institutions, COVID-19, and Food Assistance
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

9. The Development Response to Kleptocracy and Strategic Corruption

Author:
Josh Rudolph
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMFUS)
Abstract:
Kleptocracies do not stop at their own borders. The same actors, networks, tactics, and resources that they wield to prevent democracy and rule of law from sprouting at home are also repurposed for foreign aggression. While cronies, oligarchs, and lesser operatives do get rich in the process, “strategic corruption” is chiefly a geopolitical weapon directed by autocratic regimes to secretly undermine the sovereignty of other countries. The three most common manifestations of strategic corruption vary on a spectrum of how directly and boldly they violate sovereignty and subvert democratic processes. Starting with the most indirect and chronic form of strategic corruption, Russia and China invest “corrosive capital” throughout Eastern Europe and the Belt and Road Initiative, respectively. They use corrupt patronage networks and opaque business dealings to spread their kleptocratic model of authoritarian governance. Those corrupt investments are usually also supported by tactics of “malign influence,” like when a minister or politician receives bribes or economic threats until they censor their political speech, advance a foreign policy initiative, or otherwise subordinate the legitimate sovereign interests entrusted to them by their own people in favor of the interests of a foreign power. Finally, the most direct and acute form of strategic corruption involves financial methods of election interference and other tactics of corrupting democratic processes. Often funded with the proceeds of kleptocracy, election interference through covert political financing has become the bailiwick of Kremlin-directed oligarchs. Separate from those three manifestations of strategic corruption—corrosive capital, malign influence, and election interference—China and Russia try to hide their dirty money and malign activities by pressuring foreign journalists into silence through surveillance, thuggery, and lawsuits. Western foreign assistance has not yet offered a coherent response to kleptocracy and strategic corruption, but that is starting to change under the Biden administration. Building resilience to this transnational threat through foreign aid will require four new approaches that are more political and coordinated than traditional development assistance. First, aid should be informed by local political analysis. More important and less used than technical reviews of laws and institutions, political analysis should center anti-corruption efforts around known corrupt activity. That starts by asking sensitive questions about which individuals, institutions, and sectors are the most corrupt, how extensively their networks of wealth and power span, and which corrupt figures must be held accountable to thoroughly purge grand corruption. Second, aid should be responsive to political shifts, scaling up and down, respectively, in response to windows of opportunity for anti-corruption reform and times of backsliding toward kleptocracy. Third, aid responses to kleptocracy should be coordinated at the regional and global levels, similarly to how grand corruption operates across borders through transnational networks of actors and tools. Fourth, anti-corruption programming should be deeply integrated across the traditional sectors of assistance, particularly health, infrastructure, energy, climate, and security. Some of these new approaches are already being prioritized under the Biden administration’s new strategy to combat corruption, particularly coordinating across tools and sectors to fight transnational corruption. But operationalizing this mission will be no small endeavor, given that anti-corruption assistance is delivered through a notoriously technocratic and apolitical bureaucracy built during the Cold War to aid socioeconomic development in individual countries steadily over decades. But getting this right offers the key to defending democracies from autocratic aggression, showing how democracy can deliver, and even helping bring foreign policy and domestic politics into alignment for the first time in a generation.
Topic:
Corruption, Development, Finance, and Kleptocracy
Political Geography:
Russia, China, Eastern Europe, and Global Focus

10. The ABCs of Sovereign Debt Relief

Author:
Rakan Aboneaaj, Jocilyn Estes, and Clemence Landers
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
We are living in a time when many countries face heightened debt vulnerabilities. Already high before the pandemic, debt levels reached a 50-year peak following the growth in government spending to combat COVID-19. Debt is not inherently bad; borrowing can allow countries to finance vital government investment. But unsustainable levels of debt can have devastating consequences for a country’s population, crowding out government spending on even basic necessities including food, medicine, and fuel imports. In Sri Lanka, for example, 71 percent of government revenue was spent on debt service before the country defaulted. Even where the tradeoff is not so dire, unsustainable debt service can limit productive investments in infrastructure, education, healthcare, and other sectors, hampering the economic growth necessary to reduce a country’s debt burden. After a decade-long period of low borrowing costs, a confluence of rising interest rates, inflation, and commodity shocks have raised the likelihood of overlapping debt crises in developing countries. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) now estimates that 30 percent of emerging market countries and 60 percent of low-income countries could face trouble paying down their debts or will soon. There is no international bankruptcy mechanism for countries that default on their external obligations. Instead, countries have historically depended on a patchwork of precedents, contracts, and conventions to bring creditors to the table for debt relief negotiations. The United States has a legacy as the lead architect of large global debt relief initiatives, from the Brady Bond plan for Latin America to the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative that kickstarted debt relief for poor countries in the 1990s. However, the global creditor landscape has changed significantly over the past decade. Low-income sovereigns’ largest creditors today—China and private bondholders—operate under much different principles than the leading bilateral creditors of the past, making the traditional norms and structures less effective for present debt challenges. The objective of the international financial architecture—historically overseen by the IMF and its shareholders— will be to corral these new creditors into a cooperative arrangement to deliver on debt relief.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Governance, Credit, and Sovereign Debt
Political Geography:
Global Focus

11. Breakthrough to Policy Use: Reinvigorating Impact Evaluation for Global Development

Author:
Julia Kaufman, Amanda Glassman, Ruth Levine, and Janeen Madan Keller
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
In 2006, when a CGD working group published its report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, very few social programs benefitted from studies that could determine whether they actually make a difference. Since then, there has been tremendous progress in harnessing better evidence to inform public policy decision making, especially from impact evaluations of programs in low- and middle-income countries. Impact evaluation is a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program, making it uniquely well suited to inform decision making about resource allocation, program design, and scale up or drawdown. But the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda, underscoring the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. The pandemic has demonstrated the cost in lives and livelihoods when policymakers make decisions based on incomplete or outdated evidence and data. Approximately 15 million more deaths took place in 2020 and 2021 than would have occurred in the absence of COVID-19, and cumulative economic losses from the pandemic are expected to reach 13.8 trillion. Given the potential real-world benefits, why have decision makers within governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence—including from impact evaluations—for better public policies? Looking ahead, how can the development community renew momentum and broaden bases of support for impact evaluation and the wider evidence agenda? In response to these questions and building on progress to date, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact. The working group aimed to develop a renewed agenda for investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for policy use. It brought together a diverse group of policymakers and experts to review recent progress and examine how to address remaining obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development, with a focus on impact evaluation. This brief summarizes the final report of the working group. The report collates resources and insights on progress in implementing and using impact evaluations for decision making and proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice, directed to the development community—government policymakers; other multilateral, bilateral, and philanthropic funders; researchers, and NGOs
Topic:
Development, Governance, Leadership, NGOs, and Impact Evaluation
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Mainstreaming Evidence Use through Locally Led Development: Recommendations for USAID

Author:
Janeen Madan Keller, Amanda Glassman, Julia Kaufman, and Ruth Levine
Publication Date:
07-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Center for Global Development
Abstract:
ince the 2006 release of the CGD report When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation, there have been nearly two decades of progress in generating and using evidence for public policy decisions and development programs. There has been a steady increase in the number of impact evaluations—a rigorous approach that establishes the attributable net impact of a project or program. Their ability to assess attribution makes impact evaluations uniquely well suited for decision making. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic put a spotlight on an unfinished agenda and underscored the need for high-quality, timely, and context-specific evidence. Across sectors, decision makers in governments, aid agencies, multilateral organizations, and NGOs have not yet fully harnessed the value of evidence for better public policies. Numerous challenges limit evidence use. On the demand side, impact evaluations may lack relevance to policy decisions and fail to respond to decision makers’ priorities, timelines, and questions. On the supply side, decision makers often lack institutional incentives and funding to generate and act on relevant evidence. Current funding models compound these challenges by contributing to misaligned incentives between policymaker needs and academic researchers. In response to these challenges, CGD launched the Working Group on New Evidence Tools for Policy Impact to develop a renewed agenda for the next generation of investments in impact evaluation and related evidence systems to enhance their value for real-world decision making. The group brought together policymakers and experts to review the progress and obstacles to the use and utility of evidence for global development. Its final report highlights how far the field has come in addressing critiques about the scale, generalizability, and policy utility of impact evaluation, and offers recommendations to the development community on “what and how to fund to deliver on the promise of impact evaluation and bolster the broader evidence ecosystem.” The working group proposes five ways to improve impact evaluation funding and practice: (1) design evaluations that start from the policy question and decision space; (2) harness technology for timely, lower-cost evidence; (3) advance locally grounded evidence-to-policy partnerships; (4) enact new incentives and structures to strengthen evidence use; and (5) invest in evidence leaders and communities. This brief details how USAID can mainstream evidence use across the agency. It is based on working group discussions, numerous consultations with experts including current and former USAID staff, and background research over the course of the project.
Topic:
Development, Local, USAID, and Foreign Assistance
Political Geography:
North America, Global Focus, and United States of America

13. Is Foreign Direct Investment Losing Clout in Development?

Author:
Axel Berger and Alexandros Ragoussis
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Over the last decade, only a single projection of foreign direct investment (FDI) flows by the United Nations influential “World Investment Report” has proposed a negative outlook in the medium term. Based partly on surveys of business executives, these forecasts reflect ex¬pecta¬tions of investment growth which, however, have repeated¬ly failed to materialise. In fact, FDI flows to develop¬ing countries have remained stagnant over the past decade. Such wishful thinking is nurtured by a long series of positive narratives and facts about foreign investment. FDI has been one of the pillars of international development efforts for over 70 years. Its promise has not been limited to critical finance, but extends to longer term competitiveness through access to better technology, managerial know-how and, above all, prosperity through more and better paid jobs in the formal sector. From the old prescriptions of the so-called Washington Consensus to the hopeful Addis Ababa Action Agenda, the dominant development narrative has therefore favoured a rather indiscriminate pursuit of investment volume. This brief calls for rethinking of narratives and policies that help to improve the impact of FDI, based on secular trends that challenge our expectations. Four such trends stand out: First, while other sources of finance for development have grown considerably over the last decades, foreign invest¬ment has not followed the trend. Second, the kind of investment that is associated with stronger gains and longer term commitment in host economies – greenfield FDI – has also been in consistent decline as a share of total invest¬ment, while mergers and acquisitions and project finance have gained in importance. Third, the top 100 multinational enterprises (MNEs), accounting for nearly a quarter of global FDI stock, rely less on employment today than they used to in order to grow their foreign presence. Job creation, knowledge transfer and spillovers are therefore less likely to materialise through the presence of mega-firms and their corresponding investment at scale. Fourth, the growth of Chinese outward FDI within a strategic expan¬sionary political agenda stands to change rules and attitudes towards foreign investment moving forwards. We argue that, collectively, these trends invite a renewed conversation around the kind of foreign investment we want and expectations of this source of finance for develop¬ment. These facts obscure neither the broad benefits of FDI to developing countries, nor the value proposition of FDI attraction. Rather, they raise questions about expectations, priorities and the alignment of investment policy with the realities experienced across develop¬ing countries. To that end, we propose four priorities that stand to make a difference in the current context. We call for policy-makers to: 1) Place additional emphasis on retention of investment and linkages with the domestic economy. 2) Try new approaches for FDI attraction that focus on improving domestic investment facilitation frameworks. 3) Be selective as to investment sources and activities in order to mitigate political risks and align inward investment better with sustainable development. 4) Add evidence to improve our understanding of invest¬ment and inform decision-making. Overall, it is critical to engage in a serious multi-stakeholder conversation around expectations, actors and solutions that respond to the investment reality of today.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Foreign Direct Investment, and Economy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. Options for a Loss and Damage Financial Mechanism

Author:
Michael Franczak
Publication Date:
10-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
International Peace Institute
Abstract:
As efforts to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change fall short, discussions around loss and damage (L&D) resulting from climate change have gained urgency. These discussions pivot on questions around financing, which remains very limited. Going into the twenty-seventh UN Climate Change Conference (COP27), the call for a new L&D financial mechanism has been raised by developing countries. This paper provides a brief overview of the state of play of global negotiations on L&D and explores options for funding arrangements for addressing L&D in the context of the positions of the G77 and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). The paper considers options related to four key questions concerning a new mechanism for financing L&D: Where will it be located? A new L&D financial mechanism could be located within the climate regime. However, there could also be complementary mechanisms outside the climate regime. Who will pay for it? There are two broad options for funding: ask for public contributions from donors or impose new taxes. An L&D financial mechanism could adopt both approaches, though some taxes could negatively impact some of the very countries advocating for L&D. Who will control it? Any mechanism should be guided by the principle of Common But Differentiated Responsibility and should be new and additional; needs-based, adequate, and predictable; public and grant-based; guided by vulnerability criteria; and locally driven. What will it do? The fund should make clear how L&D is both distinct from and linked to mitigation and adaptation and should take special care to address critical gaps in financing for slow-onset and noneconomic losses.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, and Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. How renewable energy transitions impact power structures in local communities

Author:
Maria-Louise Clausen
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
International donors often see renewable energy transitions in fragile and conflict-affected states as a building block for peace and development. But donor-supported transitions to small-scale renewable energy generation can both mitigate and exacerbate local conflict dynamics and undermine the central state. In fragile and conflict-affected states, it is often difficult for the central authorities to protect large-scale energy infrastructure from attacks and sabotage, and thus guarantee long-term stability. Moreover, local communities often use fuel-driven generators to supplement the state-driven national grid, but national diesel supply lines are also vulnerable to disruptions. Consequently, international donors increasingly support small-scale renewable energy generation as a climate friendly alternative to centralised and state-led energy generation. Solar photovoltaic (PV) in particular has become a widely promoted, affordable and accessible technology for local energy generation.
Topic:
Security, Climate Change, Development, Water, Non State Actors, Governance, Inequality, Renewable Energy, and Energy Transition
Political Geography:
Global Focus

16. The Role of Development Actors in Responding to Environment and Security Links

Author:
Karen Meijer and Katongo Seyuba
Publication Date:
12-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Stockholm International Peace Research Institute
Abstract:
Despite growing interest among development actors to integrate links between the environment, climate, peace and security into their policies and activities, practical approaches to addressing environment-related security risks are lagging behind awareness at policy level. This policy brief provides insights into how donors can incentivize implementing organizations to further develop and apply these practical approaches. It recommends support that: (a) facilitates engagement between implementing organizations and local communities, and prioritizes local knowledge and solutions; (b) builds new partnerships between implementing organizations from both the environment or climate side and the security or peacebuilding side; (c) enables the sharing of good practices and lessons learned on how to address environment-related security risks at various levels; (d) promotes the inclusion and prioritization of environment–security links in country-level policies; and (e) is more flexible in implementation, as well as engages in long-term commitments and funding.
Topic:
Security, Development, Environment, Risk, and Donors
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LBQTI funding data explores gaps and improvements over time and identifies opportunities to increase funding for LBQ, trans, and intersex communities and movements. The brief also identifies top LBTQI funders and shares good practice examples of government and multilateral funders integrating LBQTI issues into their gender equality development programming.
Topic:
Development, LGBT+, Equality, Philanthropy, Funding, and Gender
Political Geography:
Global Focus

18. Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of Intermediary funding data compares data on different types of intermediaries in order to provide greater understanding to the field about how, where, and to whom intermediaries are distributing resources. The brief also examines how government, multilateral, and private foundation funders partner with intermediaries to support global LGBTI rights and development.
Topic:
Development, Human Rights, LGBT+, Data, Philanthropy, and Funding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

19. Diving Deeper: Under the Surface of Embassy Funding

Author:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Publication Date:
06-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Global Philanthropy Project (GPP)
Abstract:
Diving Deeper: Under the surface of LGBTI embassy funding data examines the extent to which embassies are providing resources for local LGBTI movements, the types of organizations and issues that are supported, as well as best practice examples. At a time when major development assistance streams supporting LGBTI issues are being stretched and in some instances reduced, and when LGBTI organizations face funding shortages, this brief provides government donors and other advocates with evidence about how embassy funding can be used to support and strengthen local movements.
Topic:
Development, LGBT+, Data, Funding, and Embassies
Political Geography:
Global Focus

20. Risks of technology use in humanitarian settings: Avoiding harm, delivering impact

Author:
Adam Moe Fejerskov, Maria-Louise Clausen, and Sarah Seddig
Publication Date:
08-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS)
Abstract:
The use of emerging technology in humanitarian settings carries significant risks. The complexity of these risks entails a need to understand and imagine risks beyond those commonly associated with a particular technology, field, or implementing organization. Recommendations: Apply an extensive interpretation of what risks may look like, where, when, for whom, and how they might occur. The indiscernible nature of risks related to technology use means identifying or imagining these moves beyond existing organizational experiences. Recognize that technology-related risks can emerge across the data chain and are not only relevant for engineering or operational staff.
Topic:
Security, Democratization, Development, Migration, Poverty, Science and Technology, Capitalism, Inequality, Conflict, Borders, Violence, and Peace
Political Geography:
Global Focus