Search

Begin New Search Topic European Union Publishing Institution German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS) Publication Year within 5 Years Publication Year within 3 Years

1. The Role of the Consumer and Systemic Policy Mixes for Circular Business Models in the EU

Author:
Hanna Fuhrmann-Riebel
Publication Date:
01-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Recent decades have shown an unprecedented growth in demand for resources, with a trend that is projected to accelerate in the future. Policymakers around the world have started to recognise that transitioning to a more resource-efficient and circular economy (CE) is key to addressing this challenge. Two important enablers for the transition to a CE are circular business models (CBMs) and consumers. The two are interlinked, as demand shifts among consumers can foster the development and supply of new business models, which in turn require the uptake by consumers to be successful. To promote the development and increase the uptake of new CBMs, policymakers need to provide the respective regulatory frameworks and incentives. Doing so requires systemic policy mixes that go beyond encouraging technological innovations and include targeting the demand side as well. This paper zooms in on the role of the consumer for CBMs, discusses potential consumer barriers to CBM demand, and outlines how policy-making can address these barriers by applying systemic mixes of instruments to tackle the macro-, meso-, and micro-level factors that influence consumer demand simultaneously. While the macro-level describes the economic context of consumers’ decision-making, that is, the availability and supply, infrastructure and price of CBMs in the market, the meso-level characterises the social environment, including social norms and social status, whereas the micro-level focuses on individual characteristics such as consumption habits, security and quality concerns, and environmental knowledge or concern. This paper illustrates how the different consumer barriers are closely interlinked, and that, ideally, policymakers should target all three levels jointly to encourage CBM demand most effectively. In doing so, policymakers should consider the principles of the waste hierarchy in order to maximise the environmental benefits of CE policy mixes. The paper mostly takes a European perspective on the topic, especially when discussing relevant policy frameworks, and reflects on potential differences to other regions, particularly in the Global South, when appropriate
Topic:
Development, European Union, Business, and Economic Growth
Political Geography:
Europe

2. The Future of EU Blended Finance and Guarantees: An Assessment of Cooperation Strategies with Least Developed Countries in Africa

Author:
Erik Lundsgaarde
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus (EFSD+) is a core element of EU development cooperation and reflects the EU’s strong commitment to deploying blended finance and guarantees as development financing tools. This discussion paper examines the EU’s intentions concerning how the EFSD+ will be integrated into geographic programmes, focussing on the least developed countries (LDCs) in Africa. Based on a review of the Multiannual Indicative Programmes (MIPs) for 30 African LDCs as well as the regional MIP for Sub-Saharan Africa covering the period 2021-2027, the paper provides an overview of funding reserved for EFSD+ implementation in geographic programmes, identifies the expected EFSD+ sectoral priorities and summarises references to development finance institutions (DFIs) as EFSD+ implementation partners. This descriptive review highlights issues for the future monitoring and assessment of the EFSD+. The paper points to uncertainty about the magnitude of the management challenge that EU institutions face in EFSD+ implementation given the difficulties of predicting the scale of guarantee-backed operations in individual countries, the lack of information on the expected volume of blended finance operations, and the limited analysis of how EFSD+ tools relate to other EU funding approaches. The paper also notes that EU institutions should be more explicit about the criteria shaping EFSD+ resource commitments to clarify relevant prerequisites for the effective deployment of EFSD+ tools. Finally, the broad thematic scope for EFSD+ use implies that knowledge about how blended finance and guarantees function and how the financing approaches interact with other interventions needs to increase throughout the EU system.
Topic:
Development, European Union, Finance, Sustainability, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Africa and Europe

3. Germany and the UK: Perspectives for Deepening the Bilateral Dialogue on Development Policy

Author:
Niels Keijzer and Ina Friesen
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Germany and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK) are the second- and fourth-largest providers of official development assistance (ODA) worldwide and are key actors in driving international policy discussions on global development in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), the G7, the G20 and other key groupings and platforms. The development policies of both countries witnessed important convergence and detailed cooperation during the first decade of this millennium – a period when Western countries understood development cooperation as a source of considerable soft power, which was demonstrated in rising budgets and like-minded policy directions. The austerity policies that followed the global economic and financial crisis, and the UK’s decision to leave the European Union (EU) in 2016, have challenged the bilateral relationship in the development policy area between Germany and the UK. The UK’s departure from the EU has reduced the number of joint interactions and corresponding opportunities for identifying cooperation initiatives. Halfway through the period envisaged for the completion of the 2030 Agenda, both countries are adjusting their development policies, seeking to determine their future European roles and global development ambitions, but they remain key partners in global development. Both the UK and Germany have recently revised or are in the process of preparing development policy strategies as part of their integrated foreign policies – a reflection process which in recent months has been challenged to adjust to the implications of the war in Ukraine. The case remains strong for regular exchanges and cooperation on development policy between both countries, including by intensifying dialogues and resuming formal secondments between the FCDO and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). Two areas in particular offer good prospects. First of all, the UK and Germany should closely work together to deliver on the current G7 Presidency agenda – including the key focus on infrastructure investment, as initiated during last year’s UK Presidency. Other key opportunities for cooperation include gender and climate action, as well as the provision of global public goods. Secondly, Germany and the UK should seek to engage in and harness the role of the OECD as a provider of key standards for international development policy and as an important forum for peer learning. As key providers of global development finance, the legitimacy of its reporting system is essential to both countries’ influence and contribution to global development.
Topic:
Development, Bilateral Relations, European Union, Development Assistance, and Dialogue
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Europe, and Germany

4. Europe’s Global Gateway: A New Geostrategic Framework for Development Policy?

Author:
Mark Furness and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The proposal by the European Union (EU) to build a “Global Gateway” to the world is potentially an important juncture in EU foreign relations. Since its official launch in December 2021, most attention has been put on the initiative’s geo­strategic implications and whether the EU can compete with China. Less attention has been paid to the Global Gateway’s implications for EU development policy in terms of strategic objectives, decision-making, thematic focus and financing. Two aspects are important in this regard. The first is whether the Global Gateway is a serious proposal that can deliver on its headline promises to massively increase European infrastructure financing in developing countries, provide partners with an alternative economic and political model to that being offered by China, and make a meaningful contribution to their efforts to realise the 2030 Agenda. The EU’s announcement that the Global Gateway will generate up to EUR 300 billion in investment by 2027 grabbed headlines, many of them sceptical. There is, however, no reason to doubt that the initiative will be adequately financed. Although the planning for the EU’s international aid budget for 2021-2027 has mostly been completed, a significant proportion remains flexible and could be spent on Global Gateway projects. As for the EU’s implementing capacity, the Gateway’s financial toolbox draws on the EU’s recent experiences with the Juncker Investment Plan and the External Investment Plan, which have both been utilised by development banks and private investors. The second aspect is whether the Global Gateway heralds a change in the EU’s motivations, objectives and modalities for cooperation with developing countries and regions. On the surface, the Global Gateway does not seem to change much. There are many thematic overlaps with existing strategic frameworks for engaging with Africa and the EU’s Neighbourhood. There is even a sense that the Global Gateway turns back the clock to the days when the EU focussed aid spending on infrastructure and emphasised its “political neutrality”. The geopolitical context in which the EU finds itself is, however, being transformed by pandemic, wars and multipolarity. The impacts of epochal events such as the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine are still playing out. The Global Gateway signals a major adjustment in the EU’s response to these transformations, particularly regarding its engagement with the “Global South”. This will create a new paradigm for EU development policy, defined by strategic interests. It is likely that the new geostrategic framework will weaken the EU’s commitment to, and observance of, core develop­ment policy principles, especially the focus on poverty, partner country ownership, open governance and the “do no harm” principle. The Global Gateway’s use of aid to cata­lyse commercial investment risks further instrumentalising EU development policy. Specific measures are therefore needed to safeguard and promote the principles that the EU and its member states have committed themselves to.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Development, European Union, Development Aid, and Competition
Political Geography:
Europe

5. The EU-CEAP Impacts on Developing Countries: An Analysis of the Plastic Packaging, Electric Vehicles and Batteries Sectors

Author:
Jenny To
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Union Circular Economy Action Plan (EU-CEAP) is key to transitioning to a circular economy and climate neutrality under the EU Green Deal – and developing and emerging countries (DECs) play important roles. They are essential for primary material chains, for example, for electric vehicle batteries. DECs are also part of secondary material chains, and Europe relies on them to recycle its plastic packaging. Despite the crucial roles that DECs play in Europe’s transition to a circular economy, literature and policy discourses have not yet examined the EU-CEAP’s impact. This discussion paper fills this gap by outlining the EU-CEAP’s challenges and opportunities for DECs and presents recommendations for development cooperation.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, European Union, Batteries, Electric Vehicles, and Plastic
Political Geography:
Europe

6. Mexico’s “Catch-22”: The Implications of Being a Trade and Climate Partner of the United States and the European Union

Author:
Simone Lucatello
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Under the current global environmental governance and trade regimes, several initiatives, such as the new United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, the European Union’s European Green Deal, and regional free trade agreements the European Union has implemented with strategic partners like Mexico, are prompting a vibrant discussion on how trade agreements can be used as a potential mechanism to create enforceable cross-border commitments to tackle climate change. However, to cut greenhouse gas emissions within a few decades, a decisive departure from current trends in emission and trade policies is required by all countries, both developed and developing. As a result, politicians, scholars and experts around the world have looked to trade agreements as a possible tool for reaching global climate commitments, either related to or independent from the Paris Agreement. But how well do these agreements suit this purpose? Carbon-intensive products worldwide increased when tariff reductions were implemented, resulting in destructive practices for many countries, particularly those in the Global South. For countries such as Mexico, the nexus between trade and climate change is not easy to address: the country is trapped between its ambitions to play a role in global trade platforms as an industrial manufacturer and agricultural exporter and its desire to be recognized as a global actor in climate change policy and actions within the global community. Despite recent changes in climate and environmental politics under the administration of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (2018–2024), Mexico is a middle-income country with a long-standing tradition as climate champion and environmental leader in the Global South and needs to make clear where it stands under the new global environmental and ecological transition scenario imposed by the climate crisis and trade-related issues. The “entanglement” of global trade treaties and commitments under the current climate crisis, represents a major shift for Mexico. Caught between the new US–Mexico-Canada Agreement, the EU–Mexico Trade Agreement and the possible impacts of the European Green Deal, Mexico needs to define its role in trade and environmental terms alongside giant partners such as the United States and the European Union, while defending its role as a regional power. If the European Green Deal takes off as an international driver for deepening climate and sustainable development goals with European Union strategic partners, it remains to be seen how Mexico will respond to the challenge. In this paper we address the possible implications for Mexico under each of these instruments. We look at the interplay between them, explore the linkages and possible conflictual pathways, and “disentangle” the schemes in which trade and climate change are interconnected. Mexico may be trapped in a “catch-22” situation. Environmental provisions embedded in trade treaties provide critical benefits to the country, but this often comes at the expense of “unacceptable” environmental enforcement measures that can put at risk national development plans, especially at a time when the environment and climate change issues are not at the top of the current administration’s political agenda.
Topic:
Climate Change, Governance, European Union, Partnerships, Trade, and Green Deal
Political Geography:
North America, Mexico, and United States of America

7. The EU-CEAP Impacts on Developing Countries – Recommendations for Development Policy

Author:
Jenny To
Publication Date:
01-2022
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Union Circular Economy Action Plan (EU-CEAP) is key to transitioning to a circular economy and climate neutrality under the EU Green Deal, with developing and emerging countries (DECs) playing an important role. First, DECs are essential for the primary material chains, for example, supplying material for electric vehicle (EV) batteries to the European Union (EU). Second, DECs are involved in secondary material chains: To recycle its plastic packaging, Europe relies on DECs. But despite the essential role DECs play in Europe’s transition to a circular economy, the EU-CEAP’s impact on DECs has largely gone unexamined in literature and policy discourses – a shortcoming that could reinforce Eurocentrism and jeopardise the much-needed willingness to cooperate on multilateral solutions to global challenges (Messner, 2022). This policy brief and associated discussion paper (To, 2022) outline challenges and opportunities for DECs that are related to the EU-CEAP and present recommendations for German development cooperation. In the plastic packaging sector, DECs will likely be impacted by stricter waste shipment regulation (WSR), along with higher EU recycling targets, mandatory recycled content for plastics, and bans on certain single-use plastic items. Hence, the following recommended policy actions: • To lower the risks of illegal plastic waste trade and disposal, DECs must be helped to enforce the WSR and meet tightened import regulations. • The impact of plastic waste imports on DEC domestic markets in light of changing WSR must be monitored; discussion about stricter EU waste export regulations should be initiated accordingly. • In response to plastic waste imports, plastic recycling in DECs must be improved by raising standards and investments in advanced machinery as well as working conditions for informal labourers. • Changing EU plastic ban regulations must be monitored to anticipate increased demand for plastic alternatives. For EVs and batteries, EU-CEAP regulations that could impact DECs include stricter due diligence requirements for raw materials, higher targets for retrieving secondary battery materials, as well as reusing, repurposing and recycling EVs and their batteries. In response, the following policy actions are recommended: • Help DEC suppliers meet tighter supply-chain require-ments in light of the expected steady increase in demand for virgin raw materials from DECs. • Help expand road infrastructure to make it possible to reuse EVs, ensure EV batteries for repurposing, and provide recycling machinery and know-how.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, European Union, Multilateralism, Supply Chains, Green Deal, and Circular Economy
Political Geography:
Europe

8. Navigating Through an External Agenda and Internal Preferences: Ghana’s National Migration Policy

Author:
Nadine Segadlo
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper presents a comprehensive analysis of the evolution of Ghana’s National Migration Policy (NMP). A major finding is that the NMP does not primarily respond to a perceived problem related to migration in Ghana but it rather pursues the migration related interests of the European Union (EU).
Topic:
Migration, European Union, and Public Policy
Political Geography:
Africa and Ghana

9. Priorities for a Development-Friendly EU Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM)

Author:
Clara Brandi
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Commission unveiled the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in July 2021 as part of its “Fit for 55” climate-policy package. The European Commission had announced this trade-policy instrument under the Green Deal in 2019 as a means of implementing more ambitious climate-policy goals without energy-intensive sectors transferring their emissions abroad (carbon leakage). The CBAM proposal envisages imposing a levy on imports in certain energy-intensive European sectors that is proportional to the carbon content of the goods concerned. The proposal complements the EU’s existing Emissions Trading System by requiring importers of goods purchased from especially energy-intensive sectors (steel, cement, electricity, fertiliser and aluminium) abroad to purchase carbon certificates based on emissions data from abroad. CBAM is primarily designed to promote an ambitious climate policy for the EU. However, the EU’s current proposal creates the impression that it is mainly about improving domestic competitiveness at the expense of climate-policy effectiveness and development prospects. The draft legislation must now be fleshed out in detail by the EU member states and the European Parliament. In addition to addressing climate-policy effectiveness and compatibility with WTO legislation, account must also be taken of the impact on European trading partners, and, in particular, poor developing countries. Many developing countries are expected to face additional export costs as a result of the CBAM. The EU should carefully evaluate the associated disadvantages for developing countries and work towards achieving a development-friendly design of the mechanism. Corresponding improvements should be made to the CBAM in the EU’s legislative process going forward: • The EU must ensure that the border adjustments do not have a detrimental impact on poor countries. Least developed countries (LDCs) should be exempted from the CBAM. • The EU should provide targeted support to the developing countries affected by the mechanism, for instance, by building their capacity for implementing the CBAM and for reducing carbon emissions in the sectors concerned. • The EU should assist low- and middle-income partner countries with the decarbonisation of their manu¬facturing industries. • The EU should also recycle revenue from the CBAM by deploying it primarily for climate-policy purposes abroad. • The affected countries should be involved to a greater extent in future through consultations and diplomatic dialogue in the process for further develop¬ing the mechanism.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Treaties and Agreements, European Union, and Carbon Emissions
Political Geography:
Europe

10. Focussing European Cooperation with the Middle East and North Africa on Social Contracts

Author:
Mark Furness and Markus Loewe
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
2021 is proving to be a key year for cooperation between Europe and its neighbours in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region. As the European Union (EU) launches its new multiannual budget, the COVID-19 pandemic has demanded a rethink of the political, economic and social priorities that the EU and its member states should pursue with MENA countries. Europe’s potential for positive influence on state–society relations in MENA countries has yet to be realised. The latest European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) South Communication, published in February 2021, promises a “new agenda” for cooperation with MENA countries. It does not, however, address conflicts between its own objectives, especially between liberal–democratic political and economic reforms, accountable government and respect for human rights on the one hand, and restrictive trade practices, migration management and security cooperation on the other. Furthermore, there is little bilateral policy coordination among EU member states. Focussing cooperation on social contracts would help overcome such conflicts, which are inherent in cooperation targeting short- to medium-term goals, such as migration management, resilience and private investment. In authoritarian contexts, these measures tend to strengthen the state at the expense of society, and thereby increase prospects for conflict, rather than the stability they promise. The social contract perspective is long-term. Social contracts rely on the state’s delivery of the “3 Ps”: protection (of citizens), provision (of economic and social services) and participation (in decision-making). The social contract provides an analytical tool and a set of organising principles for joint EU and member state priorities and activities. The social contract lens shows how the 3 Ps work together as a framework for social cohesion, peaceful relations and political stability. In practical terms, its use would help improve the effectiveness, coherence and coordination of EU and member state cooperation with MENA countries. Some EU member states prefer to focus on trade and economic cooperation, some on political reform and human rights, and others on migration management. If all take a more long-term perspective, they will realise that sustainable social contracts in MENA countries are good for all of their aims. All European actions should support reforms in MENA countries that aim to make social contracts more acceptable to the contracting parties – governments and social groups. Ideally, such reforms result from negotiations of social contracts between parties on equal terms. In practice, how¬ever, the negotiation power of social groups is often limited – one reason why Europe should ensure that its programmes strengthen societies at least as much as governments. This paper discusses four key cooperation areas which are potential drivers of change for social contracts: • Conflict resolution, peacebuilding and reconstruction; • Post-COVID-19 recovery: health and social protection; • Participation at local, regional and national levels; and • Mutually beneficial migration and mobility. The EU and its member states, by working together on the 3 Ps in these four areas, can influence positive change in the MENA region.
Topic:
Conflict Resolution, Migration, Regional Cooperation, European Union, COVID-19, and Peacebuilding
Political Geography:
Europe, Middle East, and North Africa

11. The External Dimensions of the European Green Deal: The Case for an Integrated Approach

Author:
Svea Koch and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The European Green Deal conveys the EU’s ambition to adjust and “green” its economic growth trajectory and become climate-neutral by 2050, as part of its contribution to the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals. While being ambitiously pursued within the Union’s own borders, the Green Deal also has strong external ramifications, as the EU leaves a tremendous ecological footprint in other parts of the world. The EU has referred to this “external dimension” of the Green Deal without further defining it, and appears to primarily understand it as a reflection of the internal strategies and as a call for the EU’s partner countries to follow a sustainable recovery trajectory similar to its own. A number of proposed EU domestic strategies (e.g. biodiversity, blue economy or farm-to-fork) contain chapters on global aspects, yet the EU seems to follow a predominantly sectoral logic to implementing the external dimension of the Green Deal. This approach has certain shortcomings. For one, it creates uncertainty for partner countries on how to adapt to the EU’s new rules, regulations and standards, and the extent of EU support for adjusting to this. It also creates a vacuum for member state engagement by means of their economy, finance, climate and foreign policies. Last but not least, it lacks clear governance mechanisms to address potentially conflicting policy objectives and to strive for greater coherence of domestic and external EU policies. Ultimately, the EU needs to define the different external dimensions of the Green Deal and promote an integrated approach. Whereas this applies universally to all partner countries of the EU, we focus in particular on developing countries in this paper. We consider these dimensions to be (1) promoting the Green Deal in bilateral and regional cooperation, (2) ensuring coherence and addressing negative spillovers, both in trade and domestic policies and (3) the EU’s global leadership in multilateral fora. Combining those three dimensions and governing them across EU institutions and member states allows for the external response to become an integral part of the EU Green Deal. Such an integrated approach allows the EU to claim leadership vis-à-vis other global powers, make credible commitments in multilateral fora for successful “green diplomacy”, and use its market and regulatory power to transform itself and others. In its bilateral relationships, the EU needs to strike a “deal” in the true sense of the word: together formulating and “owning” cooperation agendas that are clear in terms of what is in it for the EU’s partners and how the EU will cushion the potential negative adjustment costs of partners. Overall, the EU needs to avoid a “projectisation” of the external dimension of the Green Deal and clarify how the different Commission services and member states aim to work together to deliver the Green Deal, including through its various external policy areas, of which development is just one.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, European Union, Economic Growth, and Green Deal
Political Geography:
Europe

12. EU-China Engagement in Humanitarian Aid: Different Approaches, Shared Interests?

Author:
Ina Friesen and Leon Janauschek
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Protracted crises and frequent natural disasters have generated an unprecedented number of people in need of humanitarian assistance. The international community faces a great challenge in supporting these populations, as the gap between needs and available funding is growing. To close this resource gap, the European Union (EU) aims to step up its engagement with emerging donors, particularly China, to increase their level of funding. Although China has previously been reluctant to engage in the international humanitarian system, its response to the COVID-19 pandemic indicates a change in attitude. Over the past year, China has delivered hundreds of tonnes of personal protective equipment (PPE) to over 150 countries and dispatched medical teams abroad. It has also donated $100 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN) and pledged to establish a global humanitarian response depot and hub in China in cooperation with the UN. Amidst increasing geopolitical tensions between China and the EU, China’s growing humanitarian engagement opens an opportunity for the EU to engage with China in the humanitarian sector. However, rather than framing China’s increased engagement in solely financial terms, the EU should develop a long-term strategy as to how to engage with China on humanitarian matters. A dialogue that takes both parties’ different approaches towards humanitarian aid into account and searches for common ground could open the door towards possible cooperation. This would not only help in narrowing the funding gap but carry the potential for greater coordination and consequently more effective assistance provision. China conceptualises humanitarian aid as a subcategory of development aid and provides the majority of its assistance bilaterally. Beijing’s state-centric approach to humanitarian assistance means in practice that it engages mostly in the aftermath of natural disasters rather than conflict settings. The EU, on the other hand, has a separate humanitarian aid policy that guides the allocation of funds and provides its humanitarian assistance through non-governmental organisations (NGOs), UN agencies and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). This Briefing Paper maps out the characteristics of Chinese humanitarian aid and outlines two areas on which the EU’s tentative steps towards a dialogue with China could focus. • Food security sector: Food insecurity is a key component in existing humanitarian needs, only exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Food assistance and nutrition are already a key area of engagement for the EU and China. The EU should advocate for China to scale up its contributions to global food security through the World Food Programme (WFP), with whom China has a good working relationship. This could be combined with a political dialogue on how to foster cooperation on food security assistance. • Anticipatory humanitarian aid: Disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response play an increasingly important role in global humanitarian aid. China has built up its most significant expertise in response to natural disasters. Enhancement of disaster risk reduction is one of the strategic priorities of the Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (DG ECHO) for 2020–2024. In light of both parties’ interest in anticipatory humanitarian aid, knowledge exchange in this area has the potential to open the door for future cooperation.
Topic:
International Relations, Humanitarian Aid, European Union, Food Security, and Engagement
Political Geography:
China, Europe, and Asia

13. What is Social Finance? Definitions by Market Participants, the EU Taxonomy for Sustainable Activities, and Implications for Development Policy

Author:
Sören Hilbrich
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
The market for social financial instruments is rapidly growing. The issuance of social bonds, for instance, reached $149.4 billion in 2020, showing an extraordinary growth of 720% compared to 2019 (ADB, 2021, p. 14). By providing capital for certain types of investments associated with positive social impacts, these instruments are intended to close funding gaps that hamper the realisation of social goals, as laid down, for instance, in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. In addition, social finance might set incentives for enterprises to engage in more sustainable business models that would give them access to social financial instruments potentially associated with a lower cost of capital. However, the magnitude of the potential contribution to society of social finance is a matter of debate. This paper focuses on an important challenge for social finance that concerns the plurality of existing definitions of social investments. The paper provides an overview of the definitions followed by market participants, describes the EU taxonomy for sustainable activities as a potential standard in this context, and discusses implications for development policy.
Topic:
Development, Markets, European Union, Sustainability, Bonds, and Social Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus

14. The EU-UNDP Partnership and Added Value in EU Development Cooperation

Author:
Erik Lundsgaarde
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
European Union (EU) funding for United Nations (UN) organisations has expanded significantly over the last two decades. The EU’s partnership with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is an important example of EU-UN cooperation, and UNDP was the fourth-largest UN recipient of European Commission funds in 2018. Against the backdrop of UN and EU reforms that aim to strengthen multilateralism and promote more integrated development cooperation approaches, this paper outlines priority areas in EU-UNDP cooperation and modes of cooperation. The term “added value” provides an entry point for identifying the rationales for EU funding to UNDP. In EU budgetary discussions, added value is a concept used to inform decisions such as whether to take action at the EU or member state levels or which means of implementation to select. These choices extend to the development cooperation arena, where the term relates to the division of labour agenda and features in assessments of effectiveness. The paper explores three perspectives to consider the added value of funding choices within the EU-UNDP partnership relating to the division of labour between EU institutions and member states, the characteristics of UNDP as an implementation channel and the qualities of the EU as a funder. On the first dimension, the large scale of EU funding for UNDP sets it apart from most member states, though EU funding priorities display elements of specialisation as well as similar emphases to member states. On the second dimension, UNDP’s large scope of work, its implementation capacities and accountability standards are attractive to the EU, but additional criteria – including organisational cost effectiveness – can alter the perception of added value. Finally, the scale of EU funding and the possibility to engage in difficult country contexts are key elements of the added value of the EU as a funder. However, the EU’s non-core funding emphasis presents a challenge for the UN resource mobilisation agenda calling for greater flexibility in organisational funding. Attention to these multiple dimensions of added value can inform future EU choices on how to orient engagement with UNDP to reinforce strengths of the organisation and enable adaptations envisaged in UN reform processes.
Topic:
Development, United Nations, Reform, European Union, Partnerships, and Funding
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. The Rise of the Team Europe Approach in EU Development Cooperation: Assessing a Moving Target

Author:
Niels Keijzer, Aline Burni, Benedikt Erforth, and Ina Friesen
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper analyses the European Union’s (EU) evolving motivations, priorities and current approaches to development cooperation under the label of “Team Europe”, following its introduction in April 2020 as the European Union’s global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It assesses what Team Europe is, to what extent and how the Team Europe approach has changed the EU’s development cooperation, which effects it has on EU initiatives to support partner countries, and discusses the implications of Team Europe on the EU’s development policy in the medium and long term. The paper analyses the Team Europe approach along four dimensions, which are traditionally emphasised in the EU’s development policy: (i) visibility, (ii) effectiveness, (iii) ownership and (iv) integration. It concludes that Team Europe primarily seeks to increase the visibility of EU’s actions in support of partner countries and prioritises European ownership of cooperation priorities over developing country ownership. Although ‘effectiveness’ efforts focus on improving efficacy of the intra-EU-MS coordinated processes, it remains unclear whether Team Europe promotes more programmatic collective action among member states.
Topic:
Development, European Union, COVID-19, and Cooperation
Political Geography:
Europe

16. EU Development Policy as a Crisis-Response Tool? Prospects and Challenges for Linking the EU’s COVID-19 Response to the Green Transition

Author:
Svea Koch, Ina Friesen, and Niels Keijzer
Publication Date:
01-2021
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
This paper assesses the preferences of EU institutions and member states for the Union’s development policy response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Addressing both the effects of climate change and biodiversity loss and the exacerbating socio-economic inequalities requires a response that links the short-term recovery of the pandemic with longer-term socio-ecological transformations. Our findings show that the EU and its member states have mainly responded to that challenge through Team Europe and Team Europe Initiatives. While these have contributed to defining a joint European response to the pandemic, the strong focus on climate and green transitions and the lack of connections to the broader SDG agenda as well as social and human development have created tensions between some member states and the EU. A key challenge ahead in further defining the European response to the pandemic is finding new strategic directions and operational means for bridging these differing priorities.
Topic:
Climate Change, European Union, Sustainable Development Goals, and COVID-19
Political Geography:
Europe