Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Policy science has developed various approaches, such as agenda-setting and goal-setting theory, aimed at explaining the emergence of policy shifts and behavioural changes. The 2030 Agenda sets an ambitious vision for human development in times of global environmental change and makes for an interesting subject to study the explanatory power of these approaches. While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) enshrined in the 2030 Agenda resulted from a process of intergovernmental negotiations, they will ultimately have to be implemented by national governments. Using the case of Mexico, we take the governance of water as a starting point to investigate whether the 2030 Agenda has indeed become a focusing event for sustainability transformation. Building on data from 33 expert interviews and findings of a Social Network Analysis of communications between water stakeholders from different sectors in the Cuautla River Basin, we conclude that major paradigm shifts in water governance in Mexico are thus far rather attributable to domestic focusing events and windows of opportunity than to the motivating impact of globally set goals. The Mexican case also illustrates that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is strongly dependent on political will at the highest level. Ensuring the continuity of its implementation across administrations will, therefore, require mainstreaming and anchoring the SDGs into the sectorial strategies that determine activities at the lower working level of government.

Policy science has developed various approaches, such as agenda-setting and goal-setting theory, aimed at explaining the emergence of policy shifts and behavioural changes. The 2030 Agenda sets an ambitious vision for human development in times of global environmental change and makes for an interesting subject to study the explanatory power of these approaches. While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) enshrined in the 2030 Agenda resulted from a process of intergovernmental negotiations, they will ultimately have to be implemented by national governments. Using the case of Mexico, we take the governance of water as a starting point to investigate whether the 2030 Agenda has indeed become a focusing event for sustainability transformation. Building on data from 33 expert interviews and findings of a Social Network Analysis of communications between water stakeholders from different sectors in the Cuautla River Basin, we conclude that major paradigm shifts in water governance in Mexico are thus far rather attributable to domestic focusing events and windows of opportunity than to the motivating impact of globally set goals. The Mexican case also illustrates that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is strongly dependent on political will at the highest level. Ensuring the continuity of its implementation across administrations will, therefore, require mainstreaming and anchoring the SDGs into the sectorial strategies that determine activities at the lower working level of government.

Policy science has developed various approaches, such as agenda-setting and goal-setting theory, aimed at explaining the emergence of policy shifts and behavioural changes. The 2030 Agenda sets an ambitious vision for human development in times of global environmental change and makes for an interesting subject to study the explanatory power of these approaches. While the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) enshrined in the 2030 Agenda resulted from a process of intergovernmental negotiations, they will ultimately have to be implemented by national governments. Using the case of Mexico, we take the governance of water as a starting point to investigate whether the 2030 Agenda has indeed become a focusing event for sustainability transformation. Building on data from 33 expert interviews and findings of a Social Network Analysis of communications between water stakeholders from different sectors in the Cuautla River Basin, we conclude that major paradigm shifts in water governance in Mexico are thus far rather attributable to domestic focusing events and windows of opportunity than to the motivating impact of globally set goals. The Mexican case also illustrates that the implementation of the 2030 Agenda is strongly dependent on political will at the highest level. Ensuring the continuity of its implementation across administrations will, therefore, require mainstreaming and anchoring the SDGs into the sectorial strategies that determine activities at the lower working level of government.

The negotiations for the next EU budget are in full swing. Between now and the end of 2020 the EU must come to a conclusion on how much money it seeks to spend over the next seven years. Yet, Member States, the Commission, and Parliament are still divided both on the overall spending ceilings and the funds' distribution. In this blog post we outline the biggest challenges standing in the way of a successful outcome to the ongoing negotiations.

The negotiations for the next EU budget are in full swing. Between now and the end of 2020 the EU must come to a conclusion on how much money it seeks to spend over the next seven years. Yet, Member States, the Commission, and Parliament are still divided both on the overall spending ceilings and the funds' distribution. In this blog post we outline the biggest challenges standing in the way of a successful outcome to the ongoing negotiations.

The negotiations for the next EU budget are in full swing. Between now and the end of 2020 the EU must come to a conclusion on how much money it seeks to spend over the next seven years. Yet, Member States, the Commission, and Parliament are still divided both on the overall spending ceilings and the funds' distribution. In this blog post we outline the biggest challenges standing in the way of a successful outcome to the ongoing negotiations.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-fceyfs").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-fceyfs").fadeIn(1000);});});

A number of European countries have deployed to United Nations missions in Africa after years of absence from the continent, and on January 21st IPI hosted a policy forum to discuss this renewed engagement and launch a policy paper on the subject. Co-sponsored by IPI, the Permanent Mission of Ireland to the UN, and the French Ministry of the Armed Forces, the event featured experts including the authors of the paper, Non-resident IPI Senior Adviser Arthur Boutellis, and Major General (ret.) Michael Beary, former Head of Mission and Force Commander, UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL).

Gen. Beary introduced the subject by outlining several of the key reasons why countries like Belgium, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden— as well as Canada—had reengaged. Northern Africa and the Sahel are strategically important for Europe, he said, peacekeeping contributions are weighed heavily in bids for seats on the Security Council, and after the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) drawdown in Afghanistan, NATO and the European Union (EU) members need to participate in international operations to keep their capabilities operational and funded. Of note, he added, is that individual countries pursued reengagement in different ways. “We would emphasize in our report that the return is not a monolithic bloc, and reasons for return are based on different national interests, military traditions, and historical backgrounds.”

Among the challenges for these troop-contributing countries (TCCs), he singled out the “trust deficit” among mission staff—he described it as “who controls what?­”—and compliance with the UN’s rigorous “10-1-2” medical support rule which calls for enhanced first aid within ten minutes, enhanced field care within one hour, and damage-control surgery and acute medicine within two hours.  Meeting those standards was “vital” to maintaining public support, he explained.

Going forward, Gen. Beary said that the UN planning process should allow for more input from the European TCCs and that European forces should be prepared for longer deployments that extend beyond one year. Alluding to another goal that needed to be addressed urgently, he said, “We also must meaningfully engage uniformed females in all segments of UN peacekeeping.”

Mr. Boutellis, in comments made via video, said that the European TCCs added great value to UN peacekeeping through their top-tier technology, adaptive vehicles, and the financial support they attract. “The presence of European TCCs helps keep the attention of Brussels and of the Security Council,” (on these peacekeeping missions) he added. On the down side, he noted that there were problems associated with the Europeans not accepting UN command and control, which created “trust and confidence concerns… Also, sometimes the European TCCs want to be treated differently,” he remarked. “In some missions, they refuse to paint their vehicles or aircraft white.” They may also have their own camps, dividing them away from the rest of the mission, which creates further security concerns.

He pointed out that the part of the paper that dealt with how the other TCCs viewed the European TCCs was reassuringly entitled “not so bad after all.” For example, he said, they valued the air coverage and the training capabilities that the Europeans brought and “understand the imperative to satisfy the political concerns of their capitals.” He stressed, however, that the UN had to “engage European capitals more strategically, be up front about mission expectations, and keep working to gain the trust of the European TCCs.”

Col. Richard Gray, Counsellor, Military Adviser of the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN, said his country had absented itself from UN peacekeeping for eight years and that “this interlude from peacekeeping had some consequences, including a loss of capabilities for how to deploy within UN peacekeeping. We had to relearn, and thankfully, the UN system helped with that.” He asserted that its experience with NATO in Afghanistan did furnish Sweden with some fresh capabilities that helped when it participated in the UN peacekeeping operation in Mali. He credited requests from Canada and EU countries with leading to the development of better Medevac (medical evacuation) policies. “Capacity building of TCCs goes both ways,” he said, “and all TCCs can learn from each other.”

Adam Smith, Team Leader, Strategic Force Generation and Capabilities Planning Cell, UN Department of Peace Operations (DPO), said he took heart from the title of the report Sharing the Burden: Lessons from the European Return to Multidimensional Peacekeeping. “‘Sharing the burden’ encapsulates what we’re trying to do,” he said. “We’re engaging the Europeans because we realize that peacekeeping has changed, and Europeans have high capabilities which need to keep up with changing peacekeeping contexts… Much work remains to be done to educate European TCCs and Canada about what UN peacekeeping is and how it has changed.”

Madalene O’Donnell, Team Leader for Partnerships, Divisions of Policy, Evaluation, and Training, UNDPO/DPET listed five objectives that guide her office’s efforts to facilitate member states’ contributions to UN peace operations:

• Encouraging member states to establish informal coordination among themselves and to create a mechanism to enable collective action;
• Positioning these dialogues within the broader conversation about the state of the multilateral system;
• Increasing the participation of women;
• Conducting greater joint diplomacy so as to “tell a better story” about UN peacekeeping; and
• Using the “new EU mechanisms and priorities to garner better EU participation in peacekeeping.”

Closing remarks were offered by Col. Richard Decombe, Military Adviser, Permanent Mission of France to the UN, and Brian Flynn, Deputy Permanent Representative of Ireland to the UN.

Col. Decombe said the characteristics essential to good multilateral peacekeeping were “credibility” to attract support and funding, “solidarity” to enable European countries to work in concert with other countries, and “complementarity.” Elaborating on the last point, he said, “This is not a question of competition or making useless comparisons but making the most of how the TCCs complement each other.”  

Ambassador Flynn noted that Ireland had an “unbroken record” of 60 years of participating in UN peacekeeping. “How we can support our European partners to contribute to UN peacekeeping is something that we prioritize,” he said. “We recognize that the burden of peacekeeping has for some time not been shared evenly, and we must all be ready to step up and play our role, and we have to look at how we can help and encourage other countries to do so.”

The discussion was moderated by Jake Sherman, Director of IPI’s Brian Urquhart Center for Peace Operations.

Since 2013, after years of near absence from the continent, a number of European countries, along with Canada, have again deployed to UN peacekeeping missions in Africa. The European presence in UN peacekeeping in Africa is now nearly at its largest since the mid-1990s. These countries provide much-needed high-end capabilities, as well as political and financial capital, to UN peacekeeping operations. Nonetheless, securing and sustaining European contributions to these types of peacekeeping operations remains an uphill battle for the UN.

This paper draws lessons from this renewed engagement by European countries and Canada, both from their point of view, as well as from that of the UN Secretariat, UN field missions, and other troop contributors. It aims to explore how these bodies and other countries can best work together in a collective endeavor to improve UN peacekeeping’s efficiency and effectiveness. Toward this end, the paper recommends a number of actions to the UN Secretariat:

• Build peacekeeping operations around first-class medical systems;
• Focus on improving processes for casualty evacuation;
• Strengthen the UN’s capacity to foster partnerships among troop-contributing countries;
• Engage Europe strategically and politically;
• Be flexible and make European contributors (and others) feel included in planning;
• Continue educating European contributors about UN peacekeeping;
• Do not limit engagement with European contributors to high-end capabilities;
• Ensure European contributors adhere to UN standards; and
• Encourage European contributors to commit to longer deployments.

Download

The role of the state as an agent of earth system governance has become more complex, contingent, and interdependent. − Although participatory and collaborative processes have contributed to more effective, equitable, and legitimate environmental governance outcomes in some instances, analyses of these processes should be situated within a broader governance perspective, which recasts questions of policy change around questions of power and justice. −The complexity and normative aspects of agency in earth system governance requires new forms of policy evaluation that account for social impacts and the ability of governance systems to adapt. − Many of the core analytical concepts in ESG–Agency scholarship, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain under-theorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labor, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the Global South, remain largely hidden. − ESG–Agency scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting scholars in those regions to engage with this research agenda.

The role of the state as an agent of earth system governance has become more complex, contingent, and interdependent. − Although participatory and collaborative processes have contributed to more effective, equitable, and legitimate environmental governance outcomes in some instances, analyses of these processes should be situated within a broader governance perspective, which recasts questions of policy change around questions of power and justice. −The complexity and normative aspects of agency in earth system governance requires new forms of policy evaluation that account for social impacts and the ability of governance systems to adapt. − Many of the core analytical concepts in ESG–Agency scholarship, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain under-theorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labor, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the Global South, remain largely hidden. − ESG–Agency scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting scholars in those regions to engage with this research agenda.

The role of the state as an agent of earth system governance has become more complex, contingent, and interdependent. − Although participatory and collaborative processes have contributed to more effective, equitable, and legitimate environmental governance outcomes in some instances, analyses of these processes should be situated within a broader governance perspective, which recasts questions of policy change around questions of power and justice. −The complexity and normative aspects of agency in earth system governance requires new forms of policy evaluation that account for social impacts and the ability of governance systems to adapt. − Many of the core analytical concepts in ESG–Agency scholarship, such as agency, power, authority, and accountability, remain under-theorized. In addition, some types of actors, including women, labor, non-human agents, those who work against earth system governance, and many voices from the Global South, remain largely hidden. − ESG–Agency scholars need to develop research projects and collaborations in understudied regions while also recruiting and supporting scholars in those regions to engage with this research agenda.

SG–Agency scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent, with the success of environmental governance depending considerably on propitious environmental and social conditions. − Scholars have shifted from an earlier focus on how agents influence behaviours and environmental quality in earth system governance to how they influence governance processes, with increasing focus on democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. − ESG–Agency scholars employ increasingly diverse methods to integrate insights from case studies, interviews, surveys, statistical analyses, and other approaches leading to deeper and more nuanced understanding of agency in earth system governance. − Adopting more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to evaluating agency can foster future understandings of and contributions to earth system governance.

SG–Agency scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent, with the success of environmental governance depending considerably on propitious environmental and social conditions. − Scholars have shifted from an earlier focus on how agents influence behaviours and environmental quality in earth system governance to how they influence governance processes, with increasing focus on democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. − ESG–Agency scholars employ increasingly diverse methods to integrate insights from case studies, interviews, surveys, statistical analyses, and other approaches leading to deeper and more nuanced understanding of agency in earth system governance. − Adopting more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to evaluating agency can foster future understandings of and contributions to earth system governance.

SG–Agency scholars have embraced the notion that agent influence is complex, contingent, and context dependent, with the success of environmental governance depending considerably on propitious environmental and social conditions. − Scholars have shifted from an earlier focus on how agents influence behaviours and environmental quality in earth system governance to how they influence governance processes, with increasing focus on democracy, participation, legitimacy, transparency, and accountability. − ESG–Agency scholars employ increasingly diverse methods to integrate insights from case studies, interviews, surveys, statistical analyses, and other approaches leading to deeper and more nuanced understanding of agency in earth system governance. − Adopting more interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and transdisciplinary approaches to evaluating agency can foster future understandings of and contributions to earth system governance.

Agency is one of five core analytical problems in the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project’s research framework, which offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. − Agency in Earth System Governance draws lessons from ESG–Agency research through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016 and contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.− ESG–Agency research draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives with distinct clusters of scholars rooted in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. − Collectively, the chapters in Agency in Earth System Governance provide an accessible synthesis of some of the field’s major questions and debates and a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with and exercise authority in environmental governance.

Agency is one of five core analytical problems in the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project’s research framework, which offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. − Agency in Earth System Governance draws lessons from ESG–Agency research through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016 and contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.− ESG–Agency research draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives with distinct clusters of scholars rooted in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. − Collectively, the chapters in Agency in Earth System Governance provide an accessible synthesis of some of the field’s major questions and debates and a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with and exercise authority in environmental governance.

Agency is one of five core analytical problems in the Earth System Governance (ESG) Project’s research framework, which offers a unique approach to the study of environmental governance. − Agency in Earth System Governance draws lessons from ESG–Agency research through a systematic review of 322 peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2008 and 2016 and contained in the ESG–Agency Harvesting Database.− ESG–Agency research draws on diverse disciplinary perspectives with distinct clusters of scholars rooted in the fields of global environmental politics, policy studies, and socio-ecological systems. − Collectively, the chapters in Agency in Earth System Governance provide an accessible synthesis of some of the field’s major questions and debates and a state-of-the-art understanding of how diverse actors engage with and exercise authority in environmental governance.

Am 22. Januar 2019 unterzeichneten Frankreich und Deutschland den Vertrag von Aachen. 56 Jahre nach dem Elysée-Vertrag bekräftigten die beiden Länder darin ihre Unterstützung für Multilateralismus, nachhaltige Entwicklung und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit.
Trotz der zum Ausdruck gebrachten Ambitionen bietet die Unterzeichnung des Vertrags auch einen Denkanstoß: inwieweit führen derartige Abkommen tatsächlich zu gemeinsamen operativen Ansätzen und wie wirken sie sich auf die deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit aus?
Um diese Frage zu beantworten, analysiert dieses Papier die Hindernisse für eine engere deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit für eine nachhaltige internationale Entwicklung. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Frage, wie auf höchster Ebene Vereinbartes in der politischen Koordination und Projektdurchführung umgesetzt wird. Die Analyse basiert auf rund 20 Interviews mit Vertretern deutscher und französischer Ministerien, Durchführungsorganisationen und Think Tanks. Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die politische Koordinierung die größte Herausforderung darstellt.
Das Papier benennt drei wesentliche Hindernisse: leicht abweichende strategische Visionen; eine mangelnde Kompatibilität der institutionellen Strukturen hinsichtlich des Spezialisierungsgrades und der Mandate der für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zuständigen Ministerien sowie der Beteiligung der Durchführungsorganisationen an der strategischen Entscheidungsfindung; und kulturelle Besonderheiten wie Kommunikationsformen und Zeitmanagement.
Das Papier formuliert fünf Empfehlungen:

1. Das Erreichte bewahren: Die Intensität der Abstimmung zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland auf der politischen und Projektebene ist einzigartig in einem internationalen Kontext, in dem sich Akteure mehr und mehr auf nationa-le Interessen konzentrieren. Eine solche Zusammenarbeit sollte daher weiter unterstützt und verstärkt werden.
2. Die politische Dynamik auf die Arbeitsebene übertra-gen: um die bilaterale Koordinierung zu intensivieren, könnten die beiden Länder einen regelmäßigen Follow-up-Mechanismus zu jeder Vereinbarung einrichten, der gemeinsame Aktionen, Ziele und Meilensteine enthält.
3. Gegenseitiges Wissen und Vertrauen fördern: Ein Per-sonalaustausch zwischen den Ministerien sowie intensive Austauschformate (deep dive) zu den Aktivitäten und Strategien beider Länder würden es ermöglichen, das gegenseitige Verständnis zu verbessern.
4. Austausch über bewährte Praktiken: Eine ausgewogene und respektvolle deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit würde von einem Austausch von Best Practices in Berei-chen profitieren, in denen ein Land weiter fortgeschritten oder besser positioniert ist als das andere (wie die franzö-sische interministerielle Koordination oder deutsche Pro-jektmonitoring- und -evaluierungsverfahren).
5. Gemeinsam handeln oder die Arbeit aufteilen: Im Vorfeld jedes gemeinsamen deutsch-französischen Engage-ments sollte abgewogen werden, ob die beiden Länder ein Interesse haben, gemeinsam zu handeln oder arbeitsteilig vorzugehen. Mittels Spezialisierung oder Zusammenarbeit würde somit die Wirkung maximiert.

Am 22. Januar 2019 unterzeichneten Frankreich und Deutschland den Vertrag von Aachen. 56 Jahre nach dem Elysée-Vertrag bekräftigten die beiden Länder darin ihre Unterstützung für Multilateralismus, nachhaltige Entwicklung und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit.
Trotz der zum Ausdruck gebrachten Ambitionen bietet die Unterzeichnung des Vertrags auch einen Denkanstoß: inwieweit führen derartige Abkommen tatsächlich zu gemeinsamen operativen Ansätzen und wie wirken sie sich auf die deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit aus?
Um diese Frage zu beantworten, analysiert dieses Papier die Hindernisse für eine engere deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit für eine nachhaltige internationale Entwicklung. Im Mittelpunkt steht die Frage, wie auf höchster Ebene Vereinbartes in der politischen Koordination und Projektdurchführung umgesetzt wird. Die Analyse basiert auf rund 20 Interviews mit Vertretern deutscher und französischer Ministerien, Durchführungsorganisationen und Think Tanks. Sie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die politische Koordinierung die größte Herausforderung darstellt.
Das Papier benennt drei wesentliche Hindernisse: leicht abweichende strategische Visionen; eine mangelnde Kompatibilität der institutionellen Strukturen hinsichtlich des Spezialisierungsgrades und der Mandate der für Entwicklungszusammenarbeit zuständigen Ministerien sowie der Beteiligung der Durchführungsorganisationen an der strategischen Entscheidungsfindung; und kulturelle Besonderheiten wie Kommunikationsformen und Zeitmanagement.
Das Papier formuliert fünf Empfehlungen:

1. Das Erreichte bewahren: Die Intensität der Abstimmung zwischen Frankreich und Deutschland auf der politischen und Projektebene ist einzigartig in einem internationalen Kontext, in dem sich Akteure mehr und mehr auf nationa-le Interessen konzentrieren. Eine solche Zusammenarbeit sollte daher weiter unterstützt und verstärkt werden.
2. Die politische Dynamik auf die Arbeitsebene übertra-gen: um die bilaterale Koordinierung zu intensivieren, könnten die beiden Länder einen regelmäßigen Follow-up-Mechanismus zu jeder Vereinbarung einrichten, der gemeinsame Aktionen, Ziele und Meilensteine enthält.
3. Gegenseitiges Wissen und Vertrauen fördern: Ein Per-sonalaustausch zwischen den Ministerien sowie intensive Austauschformate (deep dive) zu den Aktivitäten und Strategien beider Länder würden es ermöglichen, das gegenseitige Verständnis zu verbessern.
4. Austausch über bewährte Praktiken: Eine ausgewogene und respektvolle deutsch-französische Zusammenarbeit würde von einem Austausch von Best Practices in Berei-chen profitieren, in denen ein Land weiter fortgeschritten oder besser positioniert ist als das andere (wie die franzö-sische interministerielle Koordination oder deutsche Pro-jektmonitoring- und -evaluierungsverfahren).
5. Gemeinsam handeln oder die Arbeit aufteilen: Im Vorfeld jedes gemeinsamen deutsch-französischen Engage-ments sollte abgewogen werden, ob die beiden Länder ein Interesse haben, gemeinsam zu handeln oder arbeitsteilig vorzugehen. Mittels Spezialisierung oder Zusammenarbeit würde somit die Wirkung maximiert.