Diplomacy & Defense Think Tank News

Das Statistische Bundesamt hat heute bekannt gegeben, dass die deutsche Wirtschaft im ersten Quartal dieses Jahres um 0,3 Prozent im Vergleich zum vorherigen Vierteljahr geschrumpft ist. Dazu ein Statement von Geraldine Dany-Knedlik, Co-Leiterin Konjunkturpolitik im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin):

Mit dem Rückgang des Bruttoinlandsprodukts im ersten Quartal um 0,3 Prozent ist nun klar, dass sich die deutsche Wirtschaft im Winterhalbjahr in einer leichten Rezession befand. Das DIW Berlin hatte einen etwas geringeren Rückgang der Wirtschaftsleistung um 0,1 Prozent prognostiziert. Dass er nun deutlicher ausfiel als erwartet, lag vor allem am privaten Konsum, der mit minus 1,2 Prozent nochmal stärker nachgab als zuvor angenommen. Ursächlich für die Konsumzurückhaltung ist die trotz der Entspannung bei den Energiepreisen unerwartet hartnäckig hohe Inflation und der damit einhergehende reale Kaufkraftverlust. Die positiven Beiträge des Außenhandels und auch von den Investitionen konnten dies nicht kompensieren, so dass das Bruttoinlandsprodukt unter dem Strich zurückging. Sowohl der private Konsum als auch die Wirtschaftsleistung insgesamt dürften sich aber im Jahresverlauf deutlich erholen.

Utilizing an original data set, this paper demonstrates how protectionist industrial policy during the period of hybrid liberalisation has shaped the organizational structure of clothing firms in Egypt. It investigates determinants of vertical integration of clothing firms into fabric production. High-end market segments are a critical determinant of integration. Limited access to finance restricts the possibilities for many firms to undertake the investment required to integrate, whilst volatile and uncertain market conditions make firms more likely to rely on the market for their inputs. But there are nuances related to market segment. Producers of higher quality garments rely on imported textiles, so these producers do not integrate even if search and switch costs are high. But the opposite is true of producers relying on domestic suppliers. Foreign institutions are better able to ensure contract enforcement with respect to quality and timely delivery so that suppliers opportunistic behaviour is deterred, reducing the necessity of clothing firms to integrate. This may not be the case with respect to domestic suppliers, when domestic institutions do not guarantee the same level of enforcement. The adoption of the hybrid liberalisation model meant that the transition to a market economy was not preceded by the creation of the necessary regulatory framework. This model resulted in inefficient upstream production and in an institutional setting conducive to agency problems. It also meant that business suffers excessive and inefficient bureaucracy. It is thus not possible for firms to achieve the first best outcome of arm’s length relations based on frictionless market transactions. Given these structural constraints firms opt for the second best solution of make rather than buy, i.e. vertical integration. But only some firms are able to use the arbitrary and discretionary decision making system to their favour, negotiating government obstacles to successful business. Those linked to power, prospered, whilst the businesses of others foundered against the wall of patronage, bureaucracy and red tape.

Utilizing an original data set, this paper demonstrates how protectionist industrial policy during the period of hybrid liberalisation has shaped the organizational structure of clothing firms in Egypt. It investigates determinants of vertical integration of clothing firms into fabric production. High-end market segments are a critical determinant of integration. Limited access to finance restricts the possibilities for many firms to undertake the investment required to integrate, whilst volatile and uncertain market conditions make firms more likely to rely on the market for their inputs. But there are nuances related to market segment. Producers of higher quality garments rely on imported textiles, so these producers do not integrate even if search and switch costs are high. But the opposite is true of producers relying on domestic suppliers. Foreign institutions are better able to ensure contract enforcement with respect to quality and timely delivery so that suppliers opportunistic behaviour is deterred, reducing the necessity of clothing firms to integrate. This may not be the case with respect to domestic suppliers, when domestic institutions do not guarantee the same level of enforcement. The adoption of the hybrid liberalisation model meant that the transition to a market economy was not preceded by the creation of the necessary regulatory framework. This model resulted in inefficient upstream production and in an institutional setting conducive to agency problems. It also meant that business suffers excessive and inefficient bureaucracy. It is thus not possible for firms to achieve the first best outcome of arm’s length relations based on frictionless market transactions. Given these structural constraints firms opt for the second best solution of make rather than buy, i.e. vertical integration. But only some firms are able to use the arbitrary and discretionary decision making system to their favour, negotiating government obstacles to successful business. Those linked to power, prospered, whilst the businesses of others foundered against the wall of patronage, bureaucracy and red tape.

Utilizing an original data set, this paper demonstrates how protectionist industrial policy during the period of hybrid liberalisation has shaped the organizational structure of clothing firms in Egypt. It investigates determinants of vertical integration of clothing firms into fabric production. High-end market segments are a critical determinant of integration. Limited access to finance restricts the possibilities for many firms to undertake the investment required to integrate, whilst volatile and uncertain market conditions make firms more likely to rely on the market for their inputs. But there are nuances related to market segment. Producers of higher quality garments rely on imported textiles, so these producers do not integrate even if search and switch costs are high. But the opposite is true of producers relying on domestic suppliers. Foreign institutions are better able to ensure contract enforcement with respect to quality and timely delivery so that suppliers opportunistic behaviour is deterred, reducing the necessity of clothing firms to integrate. This may not be the case with respect to domestic suppliers, when domestic institutions do not guarantee the same level of enforcement. The adoption of the hybrid liberalisation model meant that the transition to a market economy was not preceded by the creation of the necessary regulatory framework. This model resulted in inefficient upstream production and in an institutional setting conducive to agency problems. It also meant that business suffers excessive and inefficient bureaucracy. It is thus not possible for firms to achieve the first best outcome of arm’s length relations based on frictionless market transactions. Given these structural constraints firms opt for the second best solution of make rather than buy, i.e. vertical integration. But only some firms are able to use the arbitrary and discretionary decision making system to their favour, negotiating government obstacles to successful business. Those linked to power, prospered, whilst the businesses of others foundered against the wall of patronage, bureaucracy and red tape.

Global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the global debt crisis call for more cooperation among nations. Yet instead of well-coordinated, wise cooperation for the global common good, geopolitical tensions are rising and protectionism seems to have  become a “new normal”. As a consequence, the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 has been dramatically slow and the benefits of growth policies are imbalanced across high-, low-, and middle-income countries just as within them.

Global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the global debt crisis call for more cooperation among nations. Yet instead of well-coordinated, wise cooperation for the global common good, geopolitical tensions are rising and protectionism seems to have  become a “new normal”. As a consequence, the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 has been dramatically slow and the benefits of growth policies are imbalanced across high-, low-, and middle-income countries just as within them.

Global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the global debt crisis call for more cooperation among nations. Yet instead of well-coordinated, wise cooperation for the global common good, geopolitical tensions are rising and protectionism seems to have  become a “new normal”. As a consequence, the delivery of the United Nations Sustainable Development Agenda 2030 has been dramatically slow and the benefits of growth policies are imbalanced across high-, low-, and middle-income countries just as within them.

Die Abteilung Makroökonomie des Deutschen Instituts für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin) sucht zum nächstmöglichen Zeitpunkt zwei studentische Hilfskräfte (m/w/div) für 10 Wochenstunden.

Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies.
One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.

Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies.
One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.

Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies.
One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.

During the formulation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, many promoted policy coherence as a key tool to ensure achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in a way that “leaves no one behind.” Their argument assumed that coherent policymaking contributes to more effective policies and supports over-arching efforts to reduce inequality. As the 2030 Agenda reaches the halfway point, however, countries are falling short on many SDGs, particularly SDG 10 (reduce inequality). This study revisits the basic assumptions about policy coherence underpinning the SDGs. We systematically screened the peer-reviewed literature to identify 40 studies that provide evidence about whether coherent policymaking contributes to more effective outcomes and helps to reduce inequality. We find that coherent policymaking did not help reduce inequality in a majority of cases and made it worse in several. Our findings challenge the narrative that coherence is a necessary pre-condition for progress on the SDGs for all people.

Climate change poses threats to individuals, communities, and cities globally. Global conversations and scholarly debates have explored ways people adapt to the impacts of climate change including through migration and relocation. This study uses Lagos, Nigeria as a case study to examine the relationship between flooding events, migration intentions as a preferred adaptation, and the destination choices for affected residents. The study draws on a mixed-methods approach which involved a survey of 352 residents and semi-structured interviews with 21 residents. We use a capability approach to analyze mobility decisions following major or repetitive flood events. We found that the majority of affected residents are willing to migrate but the ability to do so is constrained by economic, social, and political factors leading to involuntary immobility. Furthermore, intra-city relocation is preferred to migration to other states in Nigeria or internationally. These findings challenge popular Global South-North migration narratives. Indeed, some residents welcome government-supported relocation plans but others remain skeptical due to lack of trust. Community-based relocation may therefore be preferred by some Lagosians. Overall, this study contributes a nuanced understanding of mobility intentions in response to climate-induced flooding in one of the world’s largest coastal cities.

Climate change poses threats to individuals, communities, and cities globally. Global conversations and scholarly debates have explored ways people adapt to the impacts of climate change including through migration and relocation. This study uses Lagos, Nigeria as a case study to examine the relationship between flooding events, migration intentions as a preferred adaptation, and the destination choices for affected residents. The study draws on a mixed-methods approach which involved a survey of 352 residents and semi-structured interviews with 21 residents. We use a capability approach to analyze mobility decisions following major or repetitive flood events. We found that the majority of affected residents are willing to migrate but the ability to do so is constrained by economic, social, and political factors leading to involuntary immobility. Furthermore, intra-city relocation is preferred to migration to other states in Nigeria or internationally. These findings challenge popular Global South-North migration narratives. Indeed, some residents welcome government-supported relocation plans but others remain skeptical due to lack of trust. Community-based relocation may therefore be preferred by some Lagosians. Overall, this study contributes a nuanced understanding of mobility intentions in response to climate-induced flooding in one of the world’s largest coastal cities.

Climate change poses threats to individuals, communities, and cities globally. Global conversations and scholarly debates have explored ways people adapt to the impacts of climate change including through migration and relocation. This study uses Lagos, Nigeria as a case study to examine the relationship between flooding events, migration intentions as a preferred adaptation, and the destination choices for affected residents. The study draws on a mixed-methods approach which involved a survey of 352 residents and semi-structured interviews with 21 residents. We use a capability approach to analyze mobility decisions following major or repetitive flood events. We found that the majority of affected residents are willing to migrate but the ability to do so is constrained by economic, social, and political factors leading to involuntary immobility. Furthermore, intra-city relocation is preferred to migration to other states in Nigeria or internationally. These findings challenge popular Global South-North migration narratives. Indeed, some residents welcome government-supported relocation plans but others remain skeptical due to lack of trust. Community-based relocation may therefore be preferred by some Lagosians. Overall, this study contributes a nuanced understanding of mobility intentions in response to climate-induced flooding in one of the world’s largest coastal cities.

Das Statistische Bundesamt hat heute bekannt gegeben, dass im vergangenen Jahr in Deutschland rund 0,6 Prozent mehr Wohnungen fertiggestellt wurden als 2021. Die Entwicklung kommentiert Konstantin Kholodilin, Immobilienökonom im Deutschen Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW Berlin), wie folgt:

Die Zahl fertiggestellter Wohnungen in Deutschland ist im vergangenen Jahr im Vergleich zu 2021 um lediglich 0,6 Prozent gestiegen, was auf eine Stagnation der Bauaktivitäten hindeutet. Insgesamt wurden im Jahr 2022 gut 295 000 Wohnungen gebaut – rund vier Prozent weniger als noch 2020. Damit nähert sich die Zahl kaum dem vom Bund vorgegebenen Ziel von 400 000 Wohnungen pro Jahr, die notwendig wären, um der steigenden Nachfrage nach Wohnraum gerecht zu werden. Es ist äußerst wahrscheinlich, dass sich diese schwache Entwicklung angesichts der stark abnehmenden Zahl der Baugenehmigungen auch im laufenden Jahr fortsetzen wird. Gestiegene Zinssätze sowie deutlich höhere Bau- und Energiekosten spielen dabei eine bedeutende Rolle. Hinzu kommt, dass so mancher Bauträger auch aufgrund geplanter Gesetze und damit verbundener Unsicherheiten zögert. Unter dem Strich sind immer weniger Menschen bereit, neue Wohnungen zu erwerben und zu bauen. All dies markiert einen Einbruch des seit 2010 für viele Jahre zu sehenden Baubooms – ausgerechnet zu einer Zeit, in der Wohnraum knapp ist. Preisregulierung und Wohnraumlenkung können das Problem kaum lösen, während die Erweiterung der Wohngeld- und Bauförderung angesichts der damit verbundenen Inflationsgefahr und steigender Staatsverschuldung immer problematischer wird. Es wäre gut, ergänzende Konzepte zu entwickeln, die die Nachfrage so lenken, dass die in einigen Regionen vorhandenen leerstehenden Wohnungen in Anspruch genommen werden.

Bonn, 22. Mai 2023. Alle Länder der Vereinten Nationen (VN) haben sich 2015 der Erreichung der 17 Ziele nachhaltiger Entwicklung (SDGs) der Agenda 2030 verschrieben. 2023, zur Halbzeit der Implementierungsphase, wird deutlich, welcher Weg noch zu gehen ist. Doch während die Staaten zwar versuchen, die Ziele auf nationaler Ebene zu erreichen, dürfen sie die Auswirkungen ihres Handelns auf andere Länder nicht aus dem Blick verlieren. Sonst riskieren sie, deren Bemühungen die Agenda 2030 umzusetzen, zu konterkarieren. Solche unerwünschten externen wirtschaftlichen, sozialen, ökologischen und sicherheitsrelevanten Auswirkungen werden als negative Spillover-Effekte bezeichnet.

Da der SDG-Index, der die Fortschritte bei der SDG-Erreichung der Länder misst, diese Effekte nicht adäquat berücksichtigt, wurde ein Spillover-Index entwickelt. Beide Rankings werden jährlich im Sustainable Development Report veröffentlicht. Während Länder mit hohen Einkommen an der Spitze des SDG-Rankings stehen (Deutschland auf Platz 6 von 163 in 2022), schneiden viele Länder des "Globalen Südens" in diesem Ranking eher schlecht ab. Die Reihenfolge kehrt sich im Spillover-Ranking um. Hier schneiden High-Income-Countries u.a. aufgrund von nicht-nachhaltigen Verhaltensweisen in Produktion und Konsum schlecht ab (Deutschland auf Platz 149 von 163 in 2022), während Länder des "Globalen Südens" das Ranking anführen. 

Deutschlands Ziel muss sein, negative Spillover-Effekte zu vermeiden, um andere Länder nicht in der Umsetzung der Agenda 2030 zu behindern, sondern gemeinsam an der globalen Implementierung dieser zu arbeiten. Eine klare Adressierung negativer Spillover-Effekte und das Schaffen verbindlicher Strukturen in der Deutschen Nachhaltigkeitsstrategie (DNS), als nationale Strategie für die Implementierung der Agenda 2030, ist daher notwendig. Bislang hat das Thema allerdings keinen Eingang in diese gefunden. Der letzte von Deutschland vorgelegte Voluntary National Review (VNR) erwähnt negative Spillover-Effekte, die Herausforderungen in ihrer Erfassung sowie ihre notwendige Reduzierung durch Maßnahmen der Bundesregierung allerdings und verdeutlicht damit die Relevanz der Problematik.

Spillover-Effekte betreffen oftmals verschiedene Bereiche und wirken damit auf zahlreiche SDGs gleichzeitig. Für eine Verankerung von Maßnahmen zur Vermeidung negativer Spillover-Effekte in der bestehenden Struktur der DNS ist daher ein integrierter und querschnittsübergreifender Ansatz notwendig. Dies kann anhand von unbeabsichtigten sozialen und ökologischen Auswirkungen aufgezeigt werden, die entlang von globalen Lieferketten auftreten. Beispielsweise verursacht der Bedarf an fossilen Rohstoffen und Mineralien im deutschen Transport- und Mobilitätssektor negative Effekte in Abbau- und Verarbeitungsregionen, die sich insbesondere in Ländern des Globalen Südens befinden. Schädliche ökologische Belastungen (SDG 15), wie Biodiversitätsverluste oder abnehmende Bodenqualität, Treibhausgasemissionen (SDG 13) oder die Verschmutzung von Wasser (SDG 14) sind Folgen.

Durch das Tolerieren schlechter Arbeitsbedingungen (SDG 8) entlang von Lieferketten sind ebenfalls negative soziale Auswirkungen zu vermerken, wie Zwangsarbeit, Arbeitsunfälle oder Gesundheitsschäden durch das ungeschützte Arbeiten in Minen. Die Nachfrage und der Import dieser Ressourcen durch Deutschland behindert andere Länder bei der Erreichung zahlreicher SDGs. Für die Verankerung in der DNS eignen sich die in ihr berücksichtigten sechs Transformationsbereiche – die großen Wenden, die es für die Erreichung der Agenda 2030 braucht. Diese Transformationsbereiche sind Menschliches Wohlbefinden und Fähigkeiten, und soziale Gerechtigkeit; Energiewende und Klimaschutz; Kreislaufwirtschaft; Nachhaltiges Bauen und Verkehrswende; Nachhaltige Agrar- und Ernährungssysteme sowie Schadstofffreie Umwelt. Die Transformationsbereiche betonen die bestehenden Wechselwirkungen zwischen verschiedenen SDGs und schaffen ressortübergreifende Arbeitsstrukturen.

Eine Adressierung negativer Spillover-Effekte in den Transformationsbereichen bietet nicht nur die Chance, diese im Status-Quo anzugehen, sondern Auswirkungen auf internationaler Ebene bereits bei der Gestaltung neuer Prozesse mitzudenken. Beispielsweise ist die dringend notwendige Elektrifizierung des Verkehrs mit einer erhöhten Nachfrage an Rohstoffen, wie Lithium und Kobalt, verbunden. Für eine nachhaltige Gestaltung der Verkehrswende müssen daher verbindliche Strukturen entwickelt werden, um negative Effekte entlang der globalen Ressourcenströme zu verhindern. Gemeinschaftlich müssen Lösungen, die die Perspektiven der betroffenen Länder berücksichtigen, erarbeitet sowie Politikkohärenz hergestellt werden. Dafür scheint, neben der Adressierung in den Transformationsbereichen, auch der Hebel Internationale Verantwortung und Zusammenarbeit greifbare Weichen zu stellen. Durch die Nutzung dieses Hebels können Rahmenbedingungen geschaffen werden, die eine Transformation erleichtern und begleiten können.

Für die sechs Transformationsbereiche und den oben genannten Hebel wurden sieben sogenannte Transformations-Teams eingerichtet, die konkrete Maßnahmenpakete für die Wenden ausarbeiten sollen. Negative Spillover-Effekte sollten Eingang in die Arbeit aller Transformations-Teams finden, nicht lediglich in die des Transformations-Teams Internationale Verantwortung und Zusammenarbeit.

Deutlich wird, dass für eine beschleunigte Transformation und das fristgerechte Erreichen der SDGs in der zweiten Halbzeit der Implementierungsphase eine konsequente Beachtung von negativen Spillover-Effekten in allen Bereichen des Handelns erforderlich ist und Deutschland sich international für das Verhindern dieser einsetzen muss. Eine Verankerung in der DNS und das Schaffen rechtlich verbindlicher Strukturen sind dafür notwendig.