Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Top diplomats, regional experts, academics, private sector actors and media representatives called on governments, NGOs, and other stakeholders to assert the role of the multilateral system and work towards a reformed and fit-for-purpose application of its principles to achieve a comprehensive and lasting peace in the MENA region.

On November 30th, IPI MENA hosted a webinar on “The Deepening Crisis in the Middle East and the Role of the Multilateral System.”

Opening the webinar, IPI MENA Senior Director Nejib Friji referenced the many crises plaguing the region, from Libya, Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, Sudan, to Palestine. He emphasized that these situations have one important thing in common: human suffering on a massive scale costing current generations decades of development delays.

He reminded the audience that the multilateral system emerged from a desire to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, but past decades have dealt major blows to people’s confidence. Multiple internationally-led conflicts have continued with no blessing or intervention by the Security Council.

“In the face of continuing conflicts and suffering, some instinctually reject the multilateral system. But we at IPI MENA believe there is a critical need for the vision it offers of the world – maybe more than ever.”

H.E Taïeb Baccouche, Secretary General of the Arab Maghreb Union and Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Former Minister of Education for the Republic of Tunisia, referred to the Israel-Palestine conflict, focusing on the way out of the current crisis. He said that the situation is defined by grave injustice, highlighting the continual encroachment on Palestinian territory by Israeli settlers.

He reflected on changing attitudes and approaches to the crisis amongst Arab leaders, outlining how they strongly rejected the 1947 partition plan and later accepted peaceful initiatives including the 1991 Madrid Conference and the Oslo Accords.

In terms of solutions, Mr. Taïeb Baccouche suggested a return to the starting point, disregarding all illegally gained territory. He offered two models: either two states or one multiconfessional state. He emphasized that the UN must play a key role in helping both parties move towards a peaceful resolution.

Referring to the situation in his country, Libya, H.E Mohamad Dayri, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs for the State of Libya said: “The outcome of the regime change in 2011 led to serious concerns for Libya, its neighboring countries, and beyond in Africa and Europe.” He noted that the situation has been marred by civil wars and security dysfunctions, allowing terror groups to take sanctuary in Libya. The threat of these groups has since diminished. Nonetheless, Libyans were subjected to multiple unlawful acts at the hands of local militias, including killings, kidnappings, and torture.

Mr. Dayri enumerated the internal and external factors that led to the current state of Libya. Poor governance and the plundering of public funds worsened living conditions for Libyans. In addition, the influence of foreign stakeholders and their conflicting priorities have compounded the complex landscape in the country. He emphasized that, despite an extended finger-pointing exercise, all parties have contributed to the current situation.

Moving to the role of the international community, Mr. Dayri highlighted that, despite the multifaceted nature of the situation, mediation efforts led by the UN have exclusively resulted in power-sharing packages, ignoring other substantial components and priorities for the people of Libya. He concluded with his recommendations, including a national reconciliation process facilitated by the UN.

H.E. Mr. Luis Amado, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs and Former Minister of Defence for the Portuguese Republic pointed to the wider implications of geopolitical crises in the MENA region and beyond. He outlined the core challenge at the heart of the Israel-Palestine conflict: how can we address an old, crystallized conflict in a new geopolitical context, with changed regional dynamics and forces?

Taking a step back, he referred to the “dynamic of confrontation” between the great powers – the US, Russia, and China – that shapes and imposes global crises. This dynamic imposes on all the power structures of the world, creating circumstances that expose the weaknesses of all multilateral institutions, e.g., repeated impasses between veto powers in the Security Council.

Mr. Amado emphasized the importance of envisioning a role for the multilateral system, sketching out a long scenario of confrontation between the great powers given the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and a looming cold war. Speaking more optimistically, he suggested a post-Western, multi-polar world emerging.

He concluded by affirming that the Israel-Palestine crisis must be faced on a UN legal basis. “We need to go back to the law. We have no alternative in political terms.” However, he implied that returning to past decisions is easier said than done, especially when it concerns removing 800,000 new settlers – is it possible to go back and undo the negligence of the international community over the past?

In answer to Mr. Friji’s question about the connections between the Libya crisis and the freezing process of the Arab Maghreb Union, Mr. Dayri referred to adverse effects on Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Niger, and Sudan, stating that the disintegration of Libya has negatively impacted the integration of the Maghreb countries.

Mr. Naman, a reporter from the Gulf Daily News asked about how certain Middle Eastern countries’ economic ties to Israel affect their response to the crisis and whether an energy shift could lead to a geopolitical shift in the region.

Mr. Luis Amado responded, pointing to the experience in Europe where only economic integration could solve repeated clashes between France, the UK, and Germany. He said a similar integration could be a path forward for the Middle East. However, he stressed that regional economic integration requires parallel political stability, and this dynamic must be balanced to make a difference.

Ms. Desiree Custers, Project Manager at the Centre for Applied Research in Partnership with the Orient (CARPO), reflected on what channels could be opened to increase communication or capacity for dialogue, especially given a discrepancy in values and ideas for the future.

Anuja Jaiswal, IPI MENA Intern, unpacked an emerging strand in the discussion. She argued that given the various time scales at play, solutions rooted in transitional justice should be placed alongside those rooted in conflict resolution.

Infolge des russischen Einmarschs in die Ukraine und des anschließenden Kriegs ist es bei der deutschen Energiewende zu einer politischen Neuausrichtung gekommen. Mit dem im Frühjahr 2022 gestarteten Osterpaket wurde eine Reihe ehrgeiziger Ziele im Bereich erneuerbarer Energien gesetzt und Gesetze verabschiedet, um zugleich Klimamaßnahmen und Energiesicherhheit zu ermöglichen. Deren Umsetzung soll Hand in Hand mit bestehenden Gesetzen, wie dem Kohleausstiegsgesetz und dem Bundesklimaschutzgesetz, erfolgen. Die Abstimmung politischer Maßnahmen und Ziele zur Min-derung der Treibhausgas-Emissionen und zur Gewähr-leistung zuverlässiger und bezahlbarer Energie fordert eine konzertierte Politikkohärenz, nämlich die Maximie-rung von Synergien und Minimierung von Zielkonflikten in der Verfolgung einer Vielzahl von Zielen. Die Minimierung von Zielkonflikten gewinnt umso mehr an Bedeutung, wenn die Energiewende für alle gerecht sein und als Vehikel eines breiteren „gerechten Wandels“ (just transition) dienen soll, und ist auch für die Erreichung der Ziele der Agenda 2030 für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (wozu auch „Niemanden zurücklassen“ zählt) und des Übereinkommens von Paris von Bedeutung.
In diesem Policy Brief werden, mit besonderem Fokus auf Nordrhein-Westfalen als einem der wichtigsten deutschen Kohlebergbauregionen, zunächst einige der wesentlichsten politischen Maßnahmen – und (In-)Kohärenzen – mit Blick auf die Energiewende beleuchtet. Im Anschluss werden – durch die Brille von Ideen, Interessen und Institutionen – wichtige politische Triebkräfte der (In-)Kohärenz von Politiken in zwei politischen Prozessen der Energiewende, die für den Elektrizitätssektor von besonderer Bedeutung sind – dem Kohleausstieg und dem Ausbau der Onshore-Windkraft –, untersucht. Wenngleich Solarkraft und grüner Wasserstoff für eine erfolgreiche Energiewende ebenfalls eine Schlüsselrolle spielen, werden sie hier nicht behandelt. Unsere Erkenntnisse basieren auf der Analyse relevanter Politikdokumente sowie 28 halbstrukturierter Interviews. Auf dem Weg zu einem „gerechten Wandel“ werden zur Förderung der Kohärenz der deutschen Energiewende und als Beitrag zur laufenden Weiterentwicklung der NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie die folgenden Empfehlungen ausgesprochen. Diese könnten auch für den neu ernannten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat von Interesse sein:
• Abbau ideologischer, institutioneller und interessenbasierter Hürden ambitionierter Klimapolitik durch Politikkohärenz. In NRW sind die Einhaltung der jüngsten Versprechen eines Kohleausstiegs bis 2030 und einer Aufhebung der 1000-Meter-„Regel“ (d. h. 1km zwischen Wohngebäuden und Windturbinen) zentral. Diese Selbstverpflichtungen sollten in die weiterentwickelte NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie einfließen und Einzug in die Gesetzgebung halten.
• Förderung größerer politischer Gleichberechtigung bei allen Entscheidungsprozessen rund um die Energiewende auf allen Regierungsebenen (Bund, Länder und Kommunen) hin zu einer stärkeren Energiedemokratie im Rahmen von Beratungs- und Beteiligungsmechanismen. Die Verminderung politischer Ungleichheiten (z. B. durch die Gründung von Genossenschaften) ist für eine erhöhte öffentliche Akzeptanz von Vorhaben zu erneuerbaren Energien, einem der Ziele der aktuellen NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, von wesentlicher Bedeutung.
• Integration von Vorstellungen der sozialen und Klimagerechtigkeit in die Energiewende-Politik, um sicherzustellen, dass die deutsche Energiewende für alle Menschen, und nicht nur für deutsche Bergleute, gerecht ist. Dabei sollten Vorstellungen von Verfahrens-, Verteilungs- und Anerkennungsgerechtigkeit berücksichtigt und in der weiterentwickelten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie betont werden.

Infolge des russischen Einmarschs in die Ukraine und des anschließenden Kriegs ist es bei der deutschen Energiewende zu einer politischen Neuausrichtung gekommen. Mit dem im Frühjahr 2022 gestarteten Osterpaket wurde eine Reihe ehrgeiziger Ziele im Bereich erneuerbarer Energien gesetzt und Gesetze verabschiedet, um zugleich Klimamaßnahmen und Energiesicherhheit zu ermöglichen. Deren Umsetzung soll Hand in Hand mit bestehenden Gesetzen, wie dem Kohleausstiegsgesetz und dem Bundesklimaschutzgesetz, erfolgen. Die Abstimmung politischer Maßnahmen und Ziele zur Min-derung der Treibhausgas-Emissionen und zur Gewähr-leistung zuverlässiger und bezahlbarer Energie fordert eine konzertierte Politikkohärenz, nämlich die Maximie-rung von Synergien und Minimierung von Zielkonflikten in der Verfolgung einer Vielzahl von Zielen. Die Minimierung von Zielkonflikten gewinnt umso mehr an Bedeutung, wenn die Energiewende für alle gerecht sein und als Vehikel eines breiteren „gerechten Wandels“ (just transition) dienen soll, und ist auch für die Erreichung der Ziele der Agenda 2030 für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (wozu auch „Niemanden zurücklassen“ zählt) und des Übereinkommens von Paris von Bedeutung.
In diesem Policy Brief werden, mit besonderem Fokus auf Nordrhein-Westfalen als einem der wichtigsten deutschen Kohlebergbauregionen, zunächst einige der wesentlichsten politischen Maßnahmen – und (In-)Kohärenzen – mit Blick auf die Energiewende beleuchtet. Im Anschluss werden – durch die Brille von Ideen, Interessen und Institutionen – wichtige politische Triebkräfte der (In-)Kohärenz von Politiken in zwei politischen Prozessen der Energiewende, die für den Elektrizitätssektor von besonderer Bedeutung sind – dem Kohleausstieg und dem Ausbau der Onshore-Windkraft –, untersucht. Wenngleich Solarkraft und grüner Wasserstoff für eine erfolgreiche Energiewende ebenfalls eine Schlüsselrolle spielen, werden sie hier nicht behandelt. Unsere Erkenntnisse basieren auf der Analyse relevanter Politikdokumente sowie 28 halbstrukturierter Interviews. Auf dem Weg zu einem „gerechten Wandel“ werden zur Förderung der Kohärenz der deutschen Energiewende und als Beitrag zur laufenden Weiterentwicklung der NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie die folgenden Empfehlungen ausgesprochen. Diese könnten auch für den neu ernannten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat von Interesse sein:
• Abbau ideologischer, institutioneller und interessenbasierter Hürden ambitionierter Klimapolitik durch Politikkohärenz. In NRW sind die Einhaltung der jüngsten Versprechen eines Kohleausstiegs bis 2030 und einer Aufhebung der 1000-Meter-„Regel“ (d. h. 1km zwischen Wohngebäuden und Windturbinen) zentral. Diese Selbstverpflichtungen sollten in die weiterentwickelte NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie einfließen und Einzug in die Gesetzgebung halten.
• Förderung größerer politischer Gleichberechtigung bei allen Entscheidungsprozessen rund um die Energiewende auf allen Regierungsebenen (Bund, Länder und Kommunen) hin zu einer stärkeren Energiedemokratie im Rahmen von Beratungs- und Beteiligungsmechanismen. Die Verminderung politischer Ungleichheiten (z. B. durch die Gründung von Genossenschaften) ist für eine erhöhte öffentliche Akzeptanz von Vorhaben zu erneuerbaren Energien, einem der Ziele der aktuellen NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, von wesentlicher Bedeutung.
• Integration von Vorstellungen der sozialen und Klimagerechtigkeit in die Energiewende-Politik, um sicherzustellen, dass die deutsche Energiewende für alle Menschen, und nicht nur für deutsche Bergleute, gerecht ist. Dabei sollten Vorstellungen von Verfahrens-, Verteilungs- und Anerkennungsgerechtigkeit berücksichtigt und in der weiterentwickelten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie betont werden.

Infolge des russischen Einmarschs in die Ukraine und des anschließenden Kriegs ist es bei der deutschen Energiewende zu einer politischen Neuausrichtung gekommen. Mit dem im Frühjahr 2022 gestarteten Osterpaket wurde eine Reihe ehrgeiziger Ziele im Bereich erneuerbarer Energien gesetzt und Gesetze verabschiedet, um zugleich Klimamaßnahmen und Energiesicherhheit zu ermöglichen. Deren Umsetzung soll Hand in Hand mit bestehenden Gesetzen, wie dem Kohleausstiegsgesetz und dem Bundesklimaschutzgesetz, erfolgen. Die Abstimmung politischer Maßnahmen und Ziele zur Min-derung der Treibhausgas-Emissionen und zur Gewähr-leistung zuverlässiger und bezahlbarer Energie fordert eine konzertierte Politikkohärenz, nämlich die Maximie-rung von Synergien und Minimierung von Zielkonflikten in der Verfolgung einer Vielzahl von Zielen. Die Minimierung von Zielkonflikten gewinnt umso mehr an Bedeutung, wenn die Energiewende für alle gerecht sein und als Vehikel eines breiteren „gerechten Wandels“ (just transition) dienen soll, und ist auch für die Erreichung der Ziele der Agenda 2030 für Nachhaltige Entwicklung (wozu auch „Niemanden zurücklassen“ zählt) und des Übereinkommens von Paris von Bedeutung.
In diesem Policy Brief werden, mit besonderem Fokus auf Nordrhein-Westfalen als einem der wichtigsten deutschen Kohlebergbauregionen, zunächst einige der wesentlichsten politischen Maßnahmen – und (In-)Kohärenzen – mit Blick auf die Energiewende beleuchtet. Im Anschluss werden – durch die Brille von Ideen, Interessen und Institutionen – wichtige politische Triebkräfte der (In-)Kohärenz von Politiken in zwei politischen Prozessen der Energiewende, die für den Elektrizitätssektor von besonderer Bedeutung sind – dem Kohleausstieg und dem Ausbau der Onshore-Windkraft –, untersucht. Wenngleich Solarkraft und grüner Wasserstoff für eine erfolgreiche Energiewende ebenfalls eine Schlüsselrolle spielen, werden sie hier nicht behandelt. Unsere Erkenntnisse basieren auf der Analyse relevanter Politikdokumente sowie 28 halbstrukturierter Interviews. Auf dem Weg zu einem „gerechten Wandel“ werden zur Förderung der Kohärenz der deutschen Energiewende und als Beitrag zur laufenden Weiterentwicklung der NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie die folgenden Empfehlungen ausgesprochen. Diese könnten auch für den neu ernannten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsbeirat von Interesse sein:
• Abbau ideologischer, institutioneller und interessenbasierter Hürden ambitionierter Klimapolitik durch Politikkohärenz. In NRW sind die Einhaltung der jüngsten Versprechen eines Kohleausstiegs bis 2030 und einer Aufhebung der 1000-Meter-„Regel“ (d. h. 1km zwischen Wohngebäuden und Windturbinen) zentral. Diese Selbstverpflichtungen sollten in die weiterentwickelte NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie einfließen und Einzug in die Gesetzgebung halten.
• Förderung größerer politischer Gleichberechtigung bei allen Entscheidungsprozessen rund um die Energiewende auf allen Regierungsebenen (Bund, Länder und Kommunen) hin zu einer stärkeren Energiedemokratie im Rahmen von Beratungs- und Beteiligungsmechanismen. Die Verminderung politischer Ungleichheiten (z. B. durch die Gründung von Genossenschaften) ist für eine erhöhte öffentliche Akzeptanz von Vorhaben zu erneuerbaren Energien, einem der Ziele der aktuellen NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie, von wesentlicher Bedeutung.
• Integration von Vorstellungen der sozialen und Klimagerechtigkeit in die Energiewende-Politik, um sicherzustellen, dass die deutsche Energiewende für alle Menschen, und nicht nur für deutsche Bergleute, gerecht ist. Dabei sollten Vorstellungen von Verfahrens-, Verteilungs- und Anerkennungsgerechtigkeit berücksichtigt und in der weiterentwickelten NRW-Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie betont werden.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Project of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the G20 aims to reduce harmful tax avoidance and evasion by multinational enterprises (MNEs), which creates large losses in governments’ revenues. In times of multiple crises, many governments urgently seek additional revenue sources to finance public expenditures for sustainable development. In particular, many low- and lower-middle-income countries have tax-to-GDP ratios of less than 15 per cent, which is insufficient to provide basic public goods such as health, education and infrastructure for their populations. This policy brief evaluates the achievements and remaining challenges of the BEPS Project to mobilise more domestic revenues, in particular in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
After the financial crisis of 2009, the G20 mandated the OECD with the design and implementation of the BEPS Project. The goal was to identify and tackle the most pressing issues that led to the erosion of corporate tax bases in their member countries. A key issue is the phenomenon that MNEs avoid large amounts of tax by shifting their profits from affiliates in high-tax countries to affiliates in low-tax countries. In 2013, the OECD presented its 15-point agenda to tackle BEPS in OECD member states. However, global tax avoidance and profit shifting can only be effectively addressed if a large number of countries is on board. Thus, in 2016, the Project opened for non-OECD/G20 countries to join the Inclusive Framework on BEPS and the implementation process of the BEPS Action Plan. However, tax administrations of many LMICs complain about the highly complex rules designed under the BEPS Action Plan that are not adapted to their context-specific capacities and needs.
Today, the Inclusive Framework on BEPS has 145 member countries, and the implementation of the BEPS Action Plan is almost finished. Preliminary academic evidence shows that the overall impact of the BEPS Project in reducing global tax avoidance and profit shifting is indeed limited. According to recent estimates, tax revenue losses due to profit shifting even increased from 9 to 10 per cent in the first years when anti-BEPS measures were implemented (see Wier & Zucman, 2022). Since there is no counterfactual world in which the BEPS Project did not take place, we can only assume that tax avoidance would have increased even more in the absence of the Project. However, the BEPS Project is still considered the biggest overhaul of global tax rules since the last century. Positive achievements include increased awareness of MNEs’ profit shifting behaviour, as well as the agreement on a global minimum tax.
To tackle BEPS challenges more successfully – globally and in particular in LMICs – international tax coopera¬tion needs to become more effective in three dimensions:

• Inclusive decision-making process: Countries should show more political will to combat tax avoidance and stop blocking more comprehensive international tax reforms. Truly inclusive cooperation between OECD and non-OECD countries is needed.
•  Mandatory implementation: Many BEPS Actions were voluntary standards and, thus, not many countries introduced them into their domestic tax laws. To fight BEPS effectively, more mandatory tax rules need to be included in future reform packages.
• Simplified rules: Several BEPS Actions were watered down and became highly complex because individual countries bargained for carve-outs. Future inter¬national tax rules need to be more ambitious and simplified in this regard. Bilateral and multilateral development cooperation agencies should provide low-income countries with capacity building and assistance in implementing tax rules.

Linking trade to environmental goals is gaining momentum. Ever more discussion about trade and climate interlinkages are prevalent in both the trade and climate policy communities. The dedicated Trade Day at the 28th Conference to the Parties (COP28) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) underlines the growing interest in trade and climate interlinkages. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, using the toolbox of trade policies to help tackle climate change should be a priority. Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) are a promising trade policy tool to accelerate the transition toward greener economies and help address the climate crisis. PTAs – agreements that reduce trade barriers among their parties – are mushrooming around the world and they include an increasing number of environmental provisions. These provisions in PTAs can help reduce environmentally harmful subsidies, incentivise the green transition, and favour the diffusion of environmental technologies. But so far, climate-related environmental provisions in PTAs have not been designed in ways that enable them to live up to this potential. Many such climate provisions in PTAs remain vague, weak, and not very innovative. This policy brief outlines why we should use PTAs as a policy tool; discusses pitfalls of their current design; and shows how negotiators should improve the design of climate-related provisions to unlock their full potential. We discuss three types of provisions that have the potential to strengthen climate protection through PTAs:
Fossil fuel subsidies: Climate provisions in PTAs should seek to eliminate or phase down fossil fuel subsidies, provide for Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries, and increase transparency on fossil fuel subsidies.
Environmental goods and services (EGS): Climate provisions in PTAs should eliminate tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers for EGS, offer SDT for developing countries in the context of EGS, and should incentivise climate-friendly production through preferential tariffs.
Investment: Climate provisions in PTAs should be designed so as to shield climate policy measures from legal challenges by providing a treaty-wide exception specifically for climate policy measures, reaffirming the right to regulate explicitly in relation to climate policy measures or carving out measures taken to address climate change from the application of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
We also outline five general policy recommendations for promoting the effectiveness of climate provisions in PTAs:
1) Prioritise win-win solutions;
2) facilitate the participation of non-state actors;
3) strengthen capacity-building and assistance;
4) enhance impact assessment, and knowledge diffusion; and
5) promote compliance and enforcement.

Linking trade to environmental goals is gaining momentum. Ever more discussion about trade and climate interlinkages are prevalent in both the trade and climate policy communities. The dedicated Trade Day at the 28th Conference to the Parties (COP28) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) underlines the growing interest in trade and climate interlinkages. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, using the toolbox of trade policies to help tackle climate change should be a priority. Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) are a promising trade policy tool to accelerate the transition toward greener economies and help address the climate crisis. PTAs – agreements that reduce trade barriers among their parties – are mushrooming around the world and they include an increasing number of environmental provisions. These provisions in PTAs can help reduce environmentally harmful subsidies, incentivise the green transition, and favour the diffusion of environmental technologies. But so far, climate-related environmental provisions in PTAs have not been designed in ways that enable them to live up to this potential. Many such climate provisions in PTAs remain vague, weak, and not very innovative. This policy brief outlines why we should use PTAs as a policy tool; discusses pitfalls of their current design; and shows how negotiators should improve the design of climate-related provisions to unlock their full potential. We discuss three types of provisions that have the potential to strengthen climate protection through PTAs:
Fossil fuel subsidies: Climate provisions in PTAs should seek to eliminate or phase down fossil fuel subsidies, provide for Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries, and increase transparency on fossil fuel subsidies.
Environmental goods and services (EGS): Climate provisions in PTAs should eliminate tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers for EGS, offer SDT for developing countries in the context of EGS, and should incentivise climate-friendly production through preferential tariffs.
Investment: Climate provisions in PTAs should be designed so as to shield climate policy measures from legal challenges by providing a treaty-wide exception specifically for climate policy measures, reaffirming the right to regulate explicitly in relation to climate policy measures or carving out measures taken to address climate change from the application of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
We also outline five general policy recommendations for promoting the effectiveness of climate provisions in PTAs:
1) Prioritise win-win solutions;
2) facilitate the participation of non-state actors;
3) strengthen capacity-building and assistance;
4) enhance impact assessment, and knowledge diffusion; and
5) promote compliance and enforcement.

Linking trade to environmental goals is gaining momentum. Ever more discussion about trade and climate interlinkages are prevalent in both the trade and climate policy communities. The dedicated Trade Day at the 28th Conference to the Parties (COP28) of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) underlines the growing interest in trade and climate interlinkages. Given the urgency of the climate crisis, using the toolbox of trade policies to help tackle climate change should be a priority. Preferential Trade Agreements (PTAs) are a promising trade policy tool to accelerate the transition toward greener economies and help address the climate crisis. PTAs – agreements that reduce trade barriers among their parties – are mushrooming around the world and they include an increasing number of environmental provisions. These provisions in PTAs can help reduce environmentally harmful subsidies, incentivise the green transition, and favour the diffusion of environmental technologies. But so far, climate-related environmental provisions in PTAs have not been designed in ways that enable them to live up to this potential. Many such climate provisions in PTAs remain vague, weak, and not very innovative. This policy brief outlines why we should use PTAs as a policy tool; discusses pitfalls of their current design; and shows how negotiators should improve the design of climate-related provisions to unlock their full potential. We discuss three types of provisions that have the potential to strengthen climate protection through PTAs:
Fossil fuel subsidies: Climate provisions in PTAs should seek to eliminate or phase down fossil fuel subsidies, provide for Special and Differential Treatment (SDT) for developing countries, and increase transparency on fossil fuel subsidies.
Environmental goods and services (EGS): Climate provisions in PTAs should eliminate tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers for EGS, offer SDT for developing countries in the context of EGS, and should incentivise climate-friendly production through preferential tariffs.
Investment: Climate provisions in PTAs should be designed so as to shield climate policy measures from legal challenges by providing a treaty-wide exception specifically for climate policy measures, reaffirming the right to regulate explicitly in relation to climate policy measures or carving out measures taken to address climate change from the application of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS).
We also outline five general policy recommendations for promoting the effectiveness of climate provisions in PTAs:
1) Prioritise win-win solutions;
2) facilitate the participation of non-state actors;
3) strengthen capacity-building and assistance;
4) enhance impact assessment, and knowledge diffusion; and
5) promote compliance and enforcement.

To bring our economies on a path to climate neutrality, investments in carbon-intensive production processes have to stop. At the same time, we need to mobilise large amounts of capital for investments conducive to a just transition. Reforming the financial sector in a way that allows this redirection of capital flows to take place is crucial.
As one element of a comprehensive sustainable finance strategy, taxonomies can potentially play a pivotal role in this regard. By providing common definitions for sustainable economic activities, these taxonomies aim to increase transparency on financial markets and help market participants to align their investment decisions with sustainability considerations.
This policy brief presents policy recommendations concerning the implementation of sustainable finance taxonomies based on experiences with the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (GFT). It mainly builds on data collected in semi-structured expert interviews with different stakeholders of the GFT conducted in South Africa between February and April 2023 (Hilbrich et al., 2023).
The implementation phase of the GFT has revealed multiple challenges, including a need for improved regulatory embedding and enhanced capacities on the part of potential users. This has led to a low uptake by market participants. To address these challenges, this policy brief presents four recommendations that are of relevance not only for South Africa but also for many other countries that are currently implementing a sustainable finance taxonomy:

• Voluntary taxonomies are insufficient to facilitate the necessary widespread uptake. Public institutions need to set a credible signal that a taxonomy will indeed become the common standard on the financial market. National regulators should issue guidance notes on taxonomy usage and consider implementing mandatory reporting rules. Regulators or stock exchanges should require issuers of green financial instruments, including green bonds, to align their project eligibility criteria with a sustainable finance taxonomy. In addition, a good coordination and a clear distribution of responsibilities among governance actors is crucial in the implementation phase. A taxonomy can only fulfil its potential if it is meaningfully integrated into an overarching sustainability strategy.
• Taxonomy reporting requires both capacity and expertise. Both market and governance actors need to ensure possibilities for learning and for exchanging specialised knowledge. Pilot studies can help reduce uncertainties and train practitioners on the job.
• A lack of bankable green projects decreases the potential of a taxonomy to redirect capital flows and reduces incentives to adopt a taxonomy. Development banks should provide risk capital and seed funding to help develop green projects.
• Interoperability between different taxonomies is an essential goal. The European Union (EU) should formally recognise taxonomies of other jurisdictions that meet certain standards as equivalent to the EU taxonomy (and communicate under what conditions it is willing to do so). Accordingly, assets shown to align with a particular taxonomy would be recognised as aligned with the EU taxonomy without further assessment.

To bring our economies on a path to climate neutrality, investments in carbon-intensive production processes have to stop. At the same time, we need to mobilise large amounts of capital for investments conducive to a just transition. Reforming the financial sector in a way that allows this redirection of capital flows to take place is crucial.
As one element of a comprehensive sustainable finance strategy, taxonomies can potentially play a pivotal role in this regard. By providing common definitions for sustainable economic activities, these taxonomies aim to increase transparency on financial markets and help market participants to align their investment decisions with sustainability considerations.
This policy brief presents policy recommendations concerning the implementation of sustainable finance taxonomies based on experiences with the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (GFT). It mainly builds on data collected in semi-structured expert interviews with different stakeholders of the GFT conducted in South Africa between February and April 2023 (Hilbrich et al., 2023).
The implementation phase of the GFT has revealed multiple challenges, including a need for improved regulatory embedding and enhanced capacities on the part of potential users. This has led to a low uptake by market participants. To address these challenges, this policy brief presents four recommendations that are of relevance not only for South Africa but also for many other countries that are currently implementing a sustainable finance taxonomy:

• Voluntary taxonomies are insufficient to facilitate the necessary widespread uptake. Public institutions need to set a credible signal that a taxonomy will indeed become the common standard on the financial market. National regulators should issue guidance notes on taxonomy usage and consider implementing mandatory reporting rules. Regulators or stock exchanges should require issuers of green financial instruments, including green bonds, to align their project eligibility criteria with a sustainable finance taxonomy. In addition, a good coordination and a clear distribution of responsibilities among governance actors is crucial in the implementation phase. A taxonomy can only fulfil its potential if it is meaningfully integrated into an overarching sustainability strategy.
• Taxonomy reporting requires both capacity and expertise. Both market and governance actors need to ensure possibilities for learning and for exchanging specialised knowledge. Pilot studies can help reduce uncertainties and train practitioners on the job.
• A lack of bankable green projects decreases the potential of a taxonomy to redirect capital flows and reduces incentives to adopt a taxonomy. Development banks should provide risk capital and seed funding to help develop green projects.
• Interoperability between different taxonomies is an essential goal. The European Union (EU) should formally recognise taxonomies of other jurisdictions that meet certain standards as equivalent to the EU taxonomy (and communicate under what conditions it is willing to do so). Accordingly, assets shown to align with a particular taxonomy would be recognised as aligned with the EU taxonomy without further assessment.

To bring our economies on a path to climate neutrality, investments in carbon-intensive production processes have to stop. At the same time, we need to mobilise large amounts of capital for investments conducive to a just transition. Reforming the financial sector in a way that allows this redirection of capital flows to take place is crucial.
As one element of a comprehensive sustainable finance strategy, taxonomies can potentially play a pivotal role in this regard. By providing common definitions for sustainable economic activities, these taxonomies aim to increase transparency on financial markets and help market participants to align their investment decisions with sustainability considerations.
This policy brief presents policy recommendations concerning the implementation of sustainable finance taxonomies based on experiences with the South African Green Finance Taxonomy (GFT). It mainly builds on data collected in semi-structured expert interviews with different stakeholders of the GFT conducted in South Africa between February and April 2023 (Hilbrich et al., 2023).
The implementation phase of the GFT has revealed multiple challenges, including a need for improved regulatory embedding and enhanced capacities on the part of potential users. This has led to a low uptake by market participants. To address these challenges, this policy brief presents four recommendations that are of relevance not only for South Africa but also for many other countries that are currently implementing a sustainable finance taxonomy:

• Voluntary taxonomies are insufficient to facilitate the necessary widespread uptake. Public institutions need to set a credible signal that a taxonomy will indeed become the common standard on the financial market. National regulators should issue guidance notes on taxonomy usage and consider implementing mandatory reporting rules. Regulators or stock exchanges should require issuers of green financial instruments, including green bonds, to align their project eligibility criteria with a sustainable finance taxonomy. In addition, a good coordination and a clear distribution of responsibilities among governance actors is crucial in the implementation phase. A taxonomy can only fulfil its potential if it is meaningfully integrated into an overarching sustainability strategy.
• Taxonomy reporting requires both capacity and expertise. Both market and governance actors need to ensure possibilities for learning and for exchanging specialised knowledge. Pilot studies can help reduce uncertainties and train practitioners on the job.
• A lack of bankable green projects decreases the potential of a taxonomy to redirect capital flows and reduces incentives to adopt a taxonomy. Development banks should provide risk capital and seed funding to help develop green projects.
• Interoperability between different taxonomies is an essential goal. The European Union (EU) should formally recognise taxonomies of other jurisdictions that meet certain standards as equivalent to the EU taxonomy (and communicate under what conditions it is willing to do so). Accordingly, assets shown to align with a particular taxonomy would be recognised as aligned with the EU taxonomy without further assessment.

Bonn, 29. November 2023. Zu den Höhepunkten der diesjährigen UN-Klimakonferenz „COP 28“ vom 30. November bis 12. Dezember in Dubai in den Vereinigten Arabischen Emiraten (VAE) gehört der erste „Global Stocktake“ bezüglich der Umsetzung des Pariser Klimaabkommens. In dieser mit Spannung erwarteten Bestandsaufnahme nehmen die Regierungen den Ist-Zustand ihrer Anstrengungen, die Erderwärmung auf 1,5 Grad zu begrenzen, in den Blick.

Ein Synthesebericht des UN-Klimasekretariats vom September zeichnet ein düsteres Bild: angesichts weiterhin steigender globaler Emissionen sind wir objektiv nicht auf Kurs, während sich das Zeitfenster im Kampf gegen die Erderwärmung weiter schließt. Der Schlüssel zur zielführenden Umsetzung liegt in einer Just Transition (“gerechter Übergang“). Dieses Schlagwort kursiert schon länger und bezeichnet inzwischen ein ganzes Spektrum an Transformationsprozessen zur Nachhaltigkeit, im Energiesektor und insgesamt in der Gesellschaft. Zentral ist die Beschleunigung einer gerechten globalen Energiewende, aber auch die Operationalisierung des auf der COP 27 beschlossenen Fonds für Schäden und Verluste sowie die Förderung einer gendergerechten Klimapolitik und –finanzierung.

Angesichts des überproportionalen Beitrags des Energiesektors zu den globalen Treibhausgasemissionen stellt die COP-Präsidentschaft der VAE eine Beschleunigung der weltweiten Energiewende – bei zugleich drastischer Reduzierung der Emissionen bis 2030 – in den Fokus der COP28. Dabei ist davon auszugehen, dass bestehende und neue Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JET-Ps), die seit der COP26 in Glasgow ins Leben gerufen wurden, im Mittelpunkt stehen. Dies sind plurilaterale Finanzierungsvereinbarungen zwischen Ländern mit hohem Einkommen (einschließlich der EU) und ausgewählten Schwellenländern, deren nationale Energiewenden mit einem sozialverträglichen Ausstieg aus fossilen Energien unterstützt werden sollen. Sie dienen zugleich als Modell für bilaterale Klima- und Entwicklungspartnerschaften, die sowohl Minderungs- als auch Anpassungsinitiativen fördern. Solche Partnerschaften können maßgeblich zu gerechten Übergängen beitragen, indem sie den Bedürfnissen der Länder auf nachhaltige Entwicklung Rechnung tragen und nicht allein auf die Energiewende abzielen.

Ein weiteres zentrales Thema der COP28 ist der Fonds für Schäden und Verluste, ein auf der letztjährigen COP eingerichtetes umfassendes Finanzierungsinstrument, das vulnerable Länder bei der Bewältigung der Folgen des Klimawandels unterstützen soll. Ein von den Vertragsparteien der Klimarahmenkonvention eingerichteter Ausschuss (Transitional Committee, TC) hat im laufenden Jahr Empfehlungen zur Operationalisierung des Fonds erarbeitet, die nun der COP28 zur Entscheidung vorgelegt werden. Der Prozess war von intensiven Debatten bestimmt, insbesondere in den für die Errichtung eines „gerechten“ neuen Klimafinanzierungsmechanismus entscheidenden Fragen, welche Anspruchs- und Vergabekriterien zugrunde gelegt werden und wer in den Fonds einzahlen soll. Der Ausschuss hat in seinen fachlichen Workshops auch den Aspekt der menschlichen Mobilität erörtert, der angesichts der Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf innerstaatliche und grenzüberschreitende Fluchtbewegungen in den Anwendungsbereich des Fonds fallen soll. Mit der COP28 sind große Erwartungen verbunden, eine endgültige Einigung über die Operationalisierung des Fonds zu erzielen. Dies wird angesichts der gemeinsamen, aber differenzierten Verantwortung für den Klimawandel für eine Beschleunigung von “just transitions“ unerlässlich sein.

Ein weiterer entscheidender Faktor ist die geschlechtsspezifische Dimension der Klimapolitik. Auch sie wird ein zentrales Anliegen der COP28 sein, da im kommenden Jahr die Überprüfung des auf der COP23 beschlossenen Gender-Aktionsplans der UNFCCC ansteht. Frauen haben weltweit weniger Zugang zu Bildung, Ressourcen und Landbesitz. Diese anhaltenden geschlechtsspezifischen Ungleichheiten verhindern ihren uneingeschränkten Zugang zu Finanzmitteln für Klimaschutz- und Anpassungsmaßnahmen. Zudem sind viele Frauen besonders stark von den verheerenden Auswirkungen der Armut im Energie-, und Transportsektor betroffen und bekommen die negativen Folgen des Klimawandels überproportional hart zu spüren. Obwohl diese Probleme schon lange bekannt sind, kommt Forschung des IDOS anhand des NDC-SDG Connections Tool zu dem Ergebnis, dass in den nationalen Klimaplänen bisher nur minimale Fortschritte in Hinblick auf Gender erzielt wurden. Übergänge können aber nicht gerecht sein, wenn sie die Geschlechterdimension nicht berücksichtigen. Die in diesem Jahr rein weibliche Delegation des IDOS wird deshalb die Beratungen zu Genderaspekten am 4. Dezember besonders aufmerksam verfolgen.

Im Zuge der Bestandsaufnahme darf nicht vergessen werden, dass die Umsetzung des Pariser Abkommens und die Verwirklichung von „just transitions“ Gleichheit, Gleichberechtigung und Gerechtigkeit in künftigen Klimaschutz- und Anpassungsmaßnahmen erfordern. Dafür sind die Beschleunigung einer gerechten globalen Energiewende, die Sicherung einer gerechten Klimafinanzierung für Entwicklungsländer und die Durchsetzung einer gendergerechten Klimapolitik und ‑finanzierung von entscheidender Bedeutung. Darüber hinaus ist es wichtig, Einvernehmen in der Frage einer Just Transition zu erzielen. Dieser Frage wird sich unsere IDOS-Delegation auf der COP28 in Dubai gezielt zuwenden und unter anderem gemeinsam mit dem Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI) und dem Green Club  eine offizielle Nebenveranstaltung mit dem Titel „Designing Coherent and Equitable Climate Policies for a Just Transitions“ veranstalten.