Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

France and Germany face common issues in global development policy, including climate change, migration and security. At the same time, their aid is spread across similar countries and sectors. Based on a quantitative overlap measure, the study reveals that the Franco-German overlap of aid allocation is more than four times as high as for the average donor. If France and Germany can bridge their divisions, the high overlap provides a momentum to take a leading role for international donor coordination. This is key in view of the opportunities and challenges of 2020 and beyond, including the German presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), climate change as well as the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Against this background, this study explores the systemic challenges and opportunities for a stronger Franco-German coordination in the framework of four country case studies, where development cooperation of both donors strongly overlaps.
Evidence from Benin, Cameroon, India and Morocco reveals that the complex development systems of the two donors impose differing time horizons and standards of procedure. Moreover, geo-political priorities complicate consensus building. The case studies stress that sustainable Franco-German cooperation only works based on a regular exchange both on the political and operational level. In this regard, the long-lasting partnership between the French and German development banks, Agence Française de Développment (AFD) and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Entwicklungsbank (KfW), illustrates how mutual understanding and careful reconciliation of approaches can facilitate cooperation. Combining capacities, France and Germany finance large-scale projects to achieve sustainable development and, this way, crowd-in resources by other development actors from the EU and beyond. Although reconciling standards in technical cooperation is more challenging, the French and German agencies, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit and Expertise France, are currently negotiating similar measures.

France and Germany face common issues in global development policy, including climate change, migration and security. At the same time, their aid is spread across similar countries and sectors. Based on a quantitative overlap measure, the study reveals that the Franco-German overlap of aid allocation is more than four times as high as for the average donor. If France and Germany can bridge their divisions, the high overlap provides a momentum to take a leading role for international donor coordination. This is key in view of the opportunities and challenges of 2020 and beyond, including the German presidency of the Council of the European Union (EU), climate change as well as the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Against this background, this study explores the systemic challenges and opportunities for a stronger Franco-German coordination in the framework of four country case studies, where development cooperation of both donors strongly overlaps.
Evidence from Benin, Cameroon, India and Morocco reveals that the complex development systems of the two donors impose differing time horizons and standards of procedure. Moreover, geo-political priorities complicate consensus building. The case studies stress that sustainable Franco-German cooperation only works based on a regular exchange both on the political and operational level. In this regard, the long-lasting partnership between the French and German development banks, Agence Française de Développment (AFD) and Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau Entwicklungsbank (KfW), illustrates how mutual understanding and careful reconciliation of approaches can facilitate cooperation. Combining capacities, France and Germany finance large-scale projects to achieve sustainable development and, this way, crowd-in resources by other development actors from the EU and beyond. Although reconciling standards in technical cooperation is more challenging, the French and German agencies, Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit and Expertise France, are currently negotiating similar measures.

Zusammenfassung:

Spätestens seit Ende März ist die Corona-Krise endgültig in Deutschland angekommen. Unklar ist aber bis heute, inwieweit die offizielle Fallzahl die tatsächliche Entwicklung der Epidemie widerspiegelt. Nutzen und Kosten einer möglichen Lockerung der einschränkenden Maßnahmen können allerdings nur dann sinnvoll betrachtet werden, wenn die Zahl der Erkrankten und die aktuelle Infektionsgeschwindigkeit bekannt sind. Gleichermaßen benötigen die Gesundheitssysteme in Deutschland und Europa Informationen über die Ausbreitung der Epidemie, um Kapazitäten anzupassen und die Versorgung der Patienten sicherzustellen. Die Entscheidungskriterien, welche Menschen getestet werden, sind in den europäischen Ländern, aber auch innerhalb Deutschlands sehr unterschiedlich. Die derzeit verfügbaren Informationen zu den getesteten Personen sind unzureichend – und damit keine angemessene Grundlage für informierte politische Entscheidungen.

Many have interpreted Chinas international reaction to the coronavirus as a soft power triumph. But the virus is in fact a strain on China´s relation to many international partners

Local populations exposed to radiation from former nuclear test sites

On 9 April, BBC Newsnight presenter Emily Maitlis opened by characterising the Corona pandemic as “a health issue with huge ramifications for social welfare, and a welfare issue with huge ramifications for public health.” But what does a response to COVID-19 look like in the absence of functioning public health and welfare systems? Some early insights can be gleaned from Somalia, a country that since the early 1990s has suffered persistent state collapse, identity and religious conflict, and a series of humanitarian crises. Has the virus changed life in Somalia ‘as we know it’, or is it one crisis amongst many?

Niels Keijzer zu afrikanischer Integration und der Agenda 2063 im Zeitalter der Globalisierung

Niels Keijzer zu afrikanischer Integration und der Agenda 2063 im Zeitalter der Globalisierung

Niels Keijzer zu afrikanischer Integration und der Agenda 2063 im Zeitalter der Globalisierung

Die heutige Rede von Bundeskanzlerin Angela Merkel zum weiteren Vorgehen in der Corona-Krise kommentiert DIW-Präsident Marcel Fratzscher wie folgt:

Die Bundesregierung hat mit den Ministerpräsidentinnen und -präsidenten der Länder eine vorsichtige und flexible Ausstiegstrategie gewählt. Ich halte diese Strategie aus drei Gründen für klug. Zum einen setzt sie ein klares Signal, dass der Schutz von Menschenleben und Gesundheit die oberste Priorität der Politik bleibt. Zum anderen geht sie mit der nötigen Umsicht vor, da die Unsicherheit über den weiteren Verlauf der Pandemie nach wie vor enorm groß ist. Aber, und das ist der dritte Grund, sie gibt der Politik genug Flexibilität, um auf neue Daten und Fakten angemessen reagieren zu können. Die Politik beweist damit Rückgrat und Standhaftigkeit, indem sie den immer lauter werdenden Forderungen nach baldigen und möglichst weitgehenden Lockerungen widersteht und nicht anderen Ländern mit deutlich schnelleren Ausstiegstrategien folgt. Das Signal, Entscheidungen auf Daten und Fakten, und nicht auf Gefühlen und Forderungen, zu basieren, ist richtig und stärkt der Politik in diesen Zeiten bei ihrer wichtigsten Aufgabe: das Vertrauen der Bürgerinnen und Bürger zu wahren. Dass ein Teil des Einzelhandels nun wieder seine Arbeit aufnehmen kann, ist ein ermutigendes Zeichen und sorgt bei vielen für Erleichterung. Doch auch der Wirtschaft dient ein zu schneller Ausstieg nicht, wenn es zu einer zweiten Welle von Ansteckungen kommt und dann weitere Maßnahmen notwendig würden. Ein zentrales Manko des Ausstiegs ist jedoch eine mangelhafte Strategie der Vorsorge in Bezug auf Maskenpflicht, deutlich mehr Tests und einer Nachverfolgung von Infizierten, um zu verhindern, dass mit den Lockerungen eine neue Ansteckungswelle losbricht. Empfehlungen reichen nicht. Auch dem Schutz von Risikogruppen muss eine höhere Priorität eingeräumt werden, die mit konkreten Maßnahmen untermauert wird. Die Politik sollte der Versuchung weiterhin widerstehen, den Interessen einiger weniger zu folgen. Eine kluge Ausstiegstrategie sollte sicherstellen, dass alle Menschen so weit wie möglich, aber auch dauerhaft wieder in ein geregeltes Alltags- und Berufsleben zurückkehren können.

Zusammenfassung:

Die Verbreitung des Corona-Virus trifft die Wirtschaft weltweit hart. Wie hart genau, ist jedoch schwer vorherzusehen. Prognosen über den Verlauf und die wirtschaftlichen Folgen von Epidemien sind auch deshalb sehr unsicher, weil es an entsprechenden Modellen für die Dynamik von Epidemien mangelt. Ein nachrichtenbasierter Epidemieindex, der Medienberichte für den Zeitraum von Januar 1990 bis Februar 2020 einbezieht, kann an dieser Stelle ansetzen und helfen, die konjunkturellen Auswirkungen epidemischer Schocks auf die deutsche und globale Wirtschaft zu schätzen. Die Analyse zeigt, dass es weltweit zu signifikanten Produktionsrückgängen kommt, die nicht wieder aufgeholt werden, sondern dauerhafter Natur sind. Widerstandsfähige Gesundheitssysteme und eine expansive Wirtschaftspolitik können dazu beitragen, die Kosten von Pandemien zu reduzieren.

As the EU devises a fiscal response to Covid-19, Irene Monasterolo and Ulrich Volz outline a combined bond issuance plan that also expands the Green Deal.

As the EU devises a fiscal response to Covid-19, Irene Monasterolo and Ulrich Volz outline a combined bond issuance plan that also expands the Green Deal.

As the EU devises a fiscal response to Covid-19, Irene Monasterolo and Ulrich Volz outline a combined bond issuance plan that also expands the Green Deal.

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, is a very good starting point for efforts of the G20 to define collective action that addresses the challenges of globalisation. In 2016, the G20 made important progress at the Hangzhou Summit by adopting the “Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. During the 2017 Hamburg Summit, the G20 re-emphasised their commitment to the 2030 Agenda in the official Summit communique and decided to take additional steps to promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In the Buenos Aires Update, adopted in 2018, G20 leaders committed to highlighting collective G20 actions taken so far on implementing the Action Plan. The Osaka Update, adopted in 2019, highlights priorities and new collective actions put forward by the Japanese G20 Presidency, strengthens the multistakeholder dialogue on the 2030 Agenda and continues the peer learning mechanism on the implementation of the Action Plan. While these commitments represent steps into the right direction, more needs to be done by the G20 to deliver on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This chapter discusses the main elements of the 2030 Agenda and assesses its specific implementation challenges. It also investigates the role of the G20 and outlines the main steps the G20 has to undertake in order to use its potential for promoting implementation. The chapter concludes by enumerating policy recommendations for future G20 summits with a view to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, is a very good starting point for efforts of the G20 to define collective action that addresses the challenges of globalisation. In 2016, the G20 made important progress at the Hangzhou Summit by adopting the “Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. During the 2017 Hamburg Summit, the G20 re-emphasised their commitment to the 2030 Agenda in the official Summit communique and decided to take additional steps to promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In the Buenos Aires Update, adopted in 2018, G20 leaders committed to highlighting collective G20 actions taken so far on implementing the Action Plan. The Osaka Update, adopted in 2019, highlights priorities and new collective actions put forward by the Japanese G20 Presidency, strengthens the multistakeholder dialogue on the 2030 Agenda and continues the peer learning mechanism on the implementation of the Action Plan. While these commitments represent steps into the right direction, more needs to be done by the G20 to deliver on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This chapter discusses the main elements of the 2030 Agenda and assesses its specific implementation challenges. It also investigates the role of the G20 and outlines the main steps the G20 has to undertake in order to use its potential for promoting implementation. The chapter concludes by enumerating policy recommendations for future G20 summits with a view to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.

The UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted in 2015, is a very good starting point for efforts of the G20 to define collective action that addresses the challenges of globalisation. In 2016, the G20 made important progress at the Hangzhou Summit by adopting the “Action Plan on the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development”. During the 2017 Hamburg Summit, the G20 re-emphasised their commitment to the 2030 Agenda in the official Summit communique and decided to take additional steps to promote the implementation of the 2030 Agenda. In the Buenos Aires Update, adopted in 2018, G20 leaders committed to highlighting collective G20 actions taken so far on implementing the Action Plan. The Osaka Update, adopted in 2019, highlights priorities and new collective actions put forward by the Japanese G20 Presidency, strengthens the multistakeholder dialogue on the 2030 Agenda and continues the peer learning mechanism on the implementation of the Action Plan. While these commitments represent steps into the right direction, more needs to be done by the G20 to deliver on the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. This chapter discusses the main elements of the 2030 Agenda and assesses its specific implementation challenges. It also investigates the role of the G20 and outlines the main steps the G20 has to undertake in order to use its potential for promoting implementation. The chapter concludes by enumerating policy recommendations for future G20 summits with a view to the implementation of the 2030 Agenda.