Sie sind hier

english

Moving away from aid: lessons from country experiences

ODI - 11. Dezember 2019 - 0:00
Drawing on case study research, we discuss the opportunities and challenges for countries managing the transition from aid.
Kategorien: english

Deliver ‘significant results now’, UN General Assembly President tells COP25 climate conference

UN #SDG News - 10. Dezember 2019 - 18:35
It is “imperative” that the COP25 climate conference underway in Spain delivers “significant results now”, Tijjani Muhammad-Bande, President of the UN General Assembly (PGA), said on Tuesday.
Kategorien: english

Global Indicator Framework for SDGs: value added or time to start over?

Global Policy Forum - 10. Dezember 2019 - 17:12

An essential basis for an effective review mechanism for the Agenda 2030 and its Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are the indicators used to measure the achievement of the targets. At a meeting in October 2019, the responsible Interagency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals (IAEG-SDGs) has worked on further developing the indicator framework. After ten semi-annual meetings and one month of open consultation, the IAEG SDGs made important progress for completing their global framework of indicators at this meeting. The IAEG-SDGs has agreed on a number of additional indicators, thus also responding to demands from civil society organisations. It has also renewed or replaced some Tier III indicators, following an appeal by Member States in the IAEG-SDG. However, this review process has also raised new concerns and highlighted some persistent problems of the framework. Questions remain about the way in which the indicator framework has contributed to progress in achieving the SDGs, particularly at national level.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Quality Assurance Most Important for Project in Ghana

SNRD Africa - 10. Dezember 2019 - 13:18
Elke Stumpf & Kathrin Cordes on the success factors of the Market Oriented Agriculture Programme in Ghana
Kategorien: english

A prime minister with no proven respect for institutions

D+C - 10. Dezember 2019 - 12:59
Why Guardian columnist is right to point out that Boris Johnson's Tories threaten Britain's constitutional order

The British constitution depends on respect for unwritten conventions. Johnson has only been in office for a short time, but we have already seen that his respect for unwritten conventions is just as small as his respect for the truth. Historically, conservatives were cautious about changing the established order. Johnson is not.

For professional reasons, I regularly read the Financial Times, the Economist and the Guardian. They have done a great job of reporting that Johnson is a habitual liar (FT – paywall) and that his promise of getting Brexit done is hollow (Economist – paywall). They also reiterate that this election is especially important in view of what is at stake: Brexit, public spending on health, public spending in general et cetera. But until today, I did not find an op-ed piece that actually spelled out the full risk, mentioned it in the headline and did not hide the profound warnings in paragraphs near the end.

Polly Toynbee's comment in the Guardian today has the headline: “Be very afraid. Boris Johnson will take revenge on all who stood up to him”. In my eyes, she deserves attention.  

As a German aware of my nation's dreadful Nazi past, I am appalled to see the Tories resorting to a “the people versus parliament” strategy and ostracising independent media. It is frightening to see them intimidating journalists. Their double standards are bizarre. In the name of “taking back control”, they are prepared to introduce a customs border separating one part of their sovereign nation from the rest. I cannot understand why anybody would believe that the National Health Service or the BBC would be safe under continuing Tory rule, given the Conservative's disloyalty to Northern Ireland's major unionist party DUP.

I'm sad to say that I find the lukewarm stance of the FT, my favourite newspaper, to be particularly disturbing. Yesterday, James Blitz argued in its Brexit briefing, that Johnson might negotiate a softer Brexit if he won a strong majority because that would mean you wouldn't depend on right-wing hardliners. Hasn't the author noticed that Johnson has been purging his party of centrists. Since 2016, he has closely aligned himself with the hardliners and done everything he could to undermine his more moderate predecessor Theresa May. Does Blitz really believe that a leader with proven authoritarian leanings becomes more accommodating the stronger his power becomes.

Today's FT includes a long story by George Parker under the headline “In search of the real Boris Johnson”. It does a reasonable job of summarising Johnson's mendacity. But it commits only two sentences to the considerable constitutional dangers, admitting that the Tory manifesto includes “a vague, but threatening, reference to the ‘need to look at broader aspects of our constitution: the relationship between the government, parliament and the courts’.” It suggests that Mr Johnson may want to take revenge against the Supreme Court after justices outlawed his attempt to suspend parliament ahead of the previous Brexit deadline on October 31. In view of the prime minister's track record of ruthlessness, this carefully worded line seems very timid, and it neglects that he probably does not only resent the Supreme Court.

Yes, I know the FT's editorial board has not endorsed any party this time, but rather advised readers to vote tactically. That closely resembles the stance taken by the Guardian and indeed Polly Toynbee personally.

The future of Britain's democracy does not only concern Britain. Since the election of Donald Trump in the USA, it has become much harder to promote democracy convincingly around the world, given that his attitudes so obviously resemble those of dictators. The ongoing impeachment drama shows that the US is in deep constitutional crisis. If Johnson wins a majority in parliament, the British scenario may soon look even worse. The UK does not have the kind of checks and balances that the US has. Johnson will be free to do what he wants, and his track record suggests that the only thing he wants is power. He is therefore likely to do his best to change the institutional order in ways that entrench his position ever deeper. That is what is at stake.

Kategorien: english

Imperilled Ape: Dam Company’s Use of ‘Local Wisdom’ Reeks of Greenwashing

#ALERT - 10. Dezember 2019 - 10:04

An international team of researchers and conservation practitioners is intensely worried about the fate of the world’s rarest ape.  

The Tapanuli orangutan is the rarest great ape in the world.  Fewer than 800 animals remain, divided into three tiny sub-populations in the Batang Toru highlands in Sumatra, Indonesia.  

A planned hydrodam could be a death knell for the species, as it will slice across the most critical area of population connectivity for the ape.  

Orangutans are so sensitive to population losses that the mortality of just 1 percent of the population per year could drive the species extinct.  This is why there has been intense local and international opposition to the dam.  

But the Indonesian corporation behind the dam, PT North Sumatra Hydro Energy, has been pushing hard to convince investors that the hydrodam is ‘green’ and can be developed in a way that won’t hurt the orangutan.  Scientists have demolished many of their key arguments, and criticized the intensely heavy-handed manner in which the project has been advanced. 

With help from public-relations firms specializing in corporate crisis management, the dam company is now pushing a particularly disingenuous argument: that traditional wisdom from local communities will protect the orangutan.  Here we show that this argument is false and baseless — so much so, that it’s even inspired a scientific satire.

LOCAL WISDOM OR GREENWASHING?

The principle of incorporating local wisdom may sound charming, but it falls apart on close inspection.  

No amount of local wisdom will prevent destruction of the orangutan’s habitat.  The hydrodam would sever crucial forest connections between remaining populations of the Tapanuli orangutan.

Furthermore, local people are clearly part of the problem.  Hunting of the orangutan is still common.   In September, a Tapanuli orangutan was severely wounded by local farmers, and the species’ name in the local Batak language means ‘white meat’.  

Indeed, the principle reason that Tapanuli orangutan still survives in the highlands of Batang Toru because it is rugged and inaccessible to hunters, loggers, and land-clearing farmers and agribusiness corporations.  

This is not to claim that support from local communities won’t be crucial for the long-term survival of Batang Toru forests, nor that ethnic groups in the area lack knowledge of the ape.  But relying on presumed traditional and sacred respect for orangutans is a cynical distortion of reality, and will not save the Tapanuli orangutan.

BIG RISKS FOR FUNDERS

Opportunities for free dialogue about the Batang Toru hydrodam appear to be closing, largely because of the pressures and intransigence of the dam corporation and its allies in the Indonesian government.

However, two major financial institutions, the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation and the Bank of China, have declined to fund the dam.  And the International Union for Conservation of Nature has requested that the development be halted to allow for independent studies on its potentially grave biodiversity impacts.  

It is our duty as scientists and practitioners with decades of experience in Indonesia to underscore the gross distortions of fact and pseudo-realities being created by the dam corporation and its public-relations firms.

We urge financial institutions not to support the Batang Toru hydrodam — or risk serious reputational damage by being linked to the demise of the world’s rarest ape.

Kategorien: english

The Global Compact on Refugees: lessons from Bangladesh

ODI - 10. Dezember 2019 - 0:00
This briefing note outlines the use, applicability and relevance of the Global Compact on Refugees in relation to the Rohingya crisis.
Kategorien: english

UN Assembly calls on all States to observe Olympic Truce throughout Tokyo Summer Games

UN #SDG News - 9. Dezember 2019 - 22:43
The General Assembly on Monday urged United Nations Member States to observe the Olympic Truce – the ancient Greek tradition calling for the cessation of hostilities before, during and after the Games – in the context of next year’s Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, Japan.
Kategorien: english

Monday’s Daily Brief: increasing inequality, human rights and climate, civil war crimes, Ethiopia reforms

UN ECOSOC - 9. Dezember 2019 - 22:42
New UN development report warns global inequality breeding a “new generation of inequalities”; human rights linked to climate change by senior UN official; intentional starvation in civil wars classified as a war crime, UN rights expert calls for Ethiopia reform support.
Kategorien: english

Linking business performance with sustainable job creation – the evidence is here!

INCLUDE Platform - 9. Dezember 2019 - 20:46

Private sector development (PSD) interventions alone will not automatically create the (better-quality) jobs needed for youth in Africa. A balance must be found between a focus on creating much needed short-term jobs and tackling underemployment in low-productivity firms and sectors in Africa and creating better-quality jobs in high-potential growth firms and large firms. These are some of the key findings of the new evidence synthesis paper, Private sector development interventions and better-quality job creation for youth in Africa: linking business performance with productivity growth and sustainable job creation, prepared for INCLUDE by Evert-jan Quak and Justin Flynn from the Institute of Development Studies (IDS).

In the frame of the ‘Boosting decent employment for Africa’s youth partnership between INCLUDE, IDRC and ILO, under the umbrella of the Global Initiative on Decent Jobs for Youth, a series of evidence synthesis papers will be released in the coming years. Led by INCLUDE, these papers will take stock of existing evidence on themes relevant to the youth employment debate. The first paper in the series was prepared by Evert-Jan Quak and Justin Flynn from IDS. It consolidates the available evidence linking PSD interventions with job creation for youth in Africa for three outcomes: job creation for youth, better-quality jobs creation for youth, and sustainable job creation for youth.

The private sector, through job creation, is seen as key to addressing the current youth employment crisis in Africa. It is clear that more high-quality jobs are urgently needed to address the high youth unemployment rates in North and South Africa, high underemployment in Sub-Saharan Africa, and the generally insufficient number of formal jobs available. One way to do this is through PSD interventions, which seek to improve firm performance and increase labour productivity in firms and sectors. Increasing labour productivity is important for firms to increase economic surplus, creating greater value and, thus, increasing incomes, particularly in low-productivity sectors. Research shows that employment (for youth) in Africa will be mostly achieved through PSD interventions, enhancing higher productivity in labour-intensive sectors such as agriculture, manufacturing (especially food processing and light industry such as textiles), and construction. However, what may count more in the long term are the investments in capital-abundant sectors, which can generate ‘transformational’ effects spurring labour market dynamics through job creation. Context-specificity is key, so PSD strategies should consider a country’s income level and phase of economic transformation to develop more targeted approaches.

With donors and governments increasingly focusing on PSD interventions that aim to improve a firm’s productivity, business performance and employment outcomes, it is important to consider the interactions between these outcomes. Different types of PSD interventions (on micro, meso and macro levels) targeting different types of firms (especially in term of size) have mixed results with regards to better-quality job creation for youth in Africa. Larger firms in Africa, those that have 100–250 or more employees, are seen as better able to increase the amount of sustainable jobs than smaller firms. This does not mean that small firms do not create jobs – in fact, the opposite is true, as 8 or 9 out of 10 jobs on the continent are created by small or medium-size enterprises (SMEs) – but over time the failure rate of SMEs is high, which may result in job losses. Because larger firms have higher productivity levels, they can generally provide higher wages and better and more sustainable jobs. Therefore, a PSD strategy should balance the focus between formal sector job creation in larger firms (mainly by encouraging investments and an enabling business environment) and tackling the constraints that SMEs (especially those in the informal sector) face, so that they can not only survive, but increase production, productivity and better-quality employment in the long term.

The youth employment challenge can be partly addressed with PSD interventions that improve firm performance and productivity. However, PSD interventions should further internalize youth employment issues and aggregate data collection to secure youth employment outcomes and understand them better. To this end, based on the evidence gathered, the paper recommends the following:

  • PSD interventions and investments should be more targeted and context specific. It is necessary to understand potential sectors for high job creation for youth (light manufacturing and food processing) and a firm’s potential to increase productivity significantly with positive spillovers to the economy, including generating high quality jobs.
  • Local and regional markets, as well as the informal sector, should not be ignored.
  • It ought to be acknowledged that the success of PSD interventions in Africa depends heavily not only on economic factors, but on political factors as well.
  • Better and standardized data that captures labour market dynamics is needed to improve the evidence base on firm performance with regard to employment outcomes for youth.
  • Funders should encourage the implementation of an iterative learning component in their programmes to shed more light on their effectiveness and to ensure greater adaptability to the context.

 

Read the summary here

The full paper will be available shortly.

Want to hear more? INCLUDE together with the Youth Employment Funders Group is organizing a webinar during which one of the authors will present the key findings of the evidence synthesis paper on Private sector development interventions and better-quality job creation for youth in Africa: linking business performance with productivity growth and sustainable job creation.

Date: Wednesday, 11 December 2019

Time: 16:00–17:00 CET (10:00–11:00 am EST)

Speaker: Evert-Jan Quak, research officer at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), UK

To register, please email Agnieszka Kazimierczuk at a.h.kazimierczuk@asc.leideniuniv.nl

Het bericht Linking business performance with sustainable job creation – the evidence is here! verscheen eerst op INCLUDE Platform.

Kategorien: english

Helping Cities and Regions achieve the SDGs: Partnering for Decentralised Development Co-operation

OECD - 9. Dezember 2019 - 18:02
By Jorge Moreira da Silva, Director, OECD Development Co-operation Directorate and Lamia Kamal-Chaoui, Director, Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities (CFE)   All too often international aid is viewed through the traditional lens of nation states. A rich-poor relationship of a developed country providing a one-way flow of financial assistance to a developing country to address crucial … Continue reading Helping Cities and Regions achieve the SDGs: Partnering for Decentralised Development Co-operation
Kategorien: english

Good-Bye to Our Beloved Colleague Yang Deng “Sunny”

SCP-Centre - 9. Dezember 2019 - 17:22

With deep sorrow we had to say goodbye to our beloved colleague Yang Deng last week. She passed away on Friday, 6 December following a tragic accident. Sunny, as she called herself, will be deeply missed by our team, of which she has been part of for seven years, as well as our partners with whom she worked closely.

We are so honoured and grateful that we got to share her friendship and partner with her during her far too short time on earth. We will miss her open, incredibly curious and brilliant mind; her passion and dedication to her work and the kindness and spirit of her friendship. Her positive attitude, drive and desire to be of service to others and the planet has touched us all.

Sunny’s light will continue to shine in our hearts and her memory will carry us forward.

We want to thank everybody who reached out to us and supported Sunny in her final days with their energy and best wishes. We send our deepest condolences to her family and friends around the world.

 

Der Beitrag Good-Bye to Our Beloved Colleague Yang Deng “Sunny” erschien zuerst auf CSCP gGmbH.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

Why the Protests in Hong Kong Have Taken a New Turn

UN Dispatch - 9. Dezember 2019 - 16:58

Protesters in Hong Kong are once again flexing their muscle. Over the weekend, the largest protests in weeks stretched through downtown Hong Kong as nearly 1 million people took to the streets to demand greater civil liberties.

This protest was the latest turn in a movement that has endured since this summer, when millions of people in Hong Kong took to the streets in an unprecedented protest against a proposed law that could allow for the extradition of people in Hong Kong to mainland china. Protesters saw that as an affront to what is known as the “one country, two systems policy.” This is the idea that though Hong Kong is formally part of China, it also has a special political status as a former British Colony — and that status includes a degree of autonomy and freedoms from the political system of mainland china.

Since those protests against the extradition bill over the summer, the situation in Hong Kong has changed dramatically. Protests have continued and have widened to include other demands. This includes a demand for universal suffrage for the people of Hong Kong. The protests and the police reaction to it have also become increasingly violent.

On the Global Dispatches podcast today is Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a professor of political science at Notre Dame University.   She discusses the situation in Hong Kong, including how the protest movement and Beijing’s reaction to it have evolved since the summer. She also discusses the concrete demands of the protesters.

If you have 25 minutes and want to learn why the people of Hong Kong are protesting and where the situation may be headed, have a listen

Get the Global Dispatches podcast Apple Podcasts  | Google PodcastsSpotify  |  Stitcher  | Radio Public

Watch: Victoria Tin-bor Hui testifies to the US Congress 

The post Why the Protests in Hong Kong Have Taken a New Turn appeared first on UN Dispatch.

Kategorien: english

Global Indicator Framework for SDGs: value added or time to start over?

Global Policy Watch - 9. Dezember 2019 - 15:41

By Barbara Adams and Karen Judd

Download this briefing (pdf version).

After 10 bi-annual sessions and a one-month open consultation, the Interagency and Expert Group on Sustainable Development Goals (IAEG-SDGs) has made important progress in finalizing its global indicator framework by which to measure progress towards the 17 SDGs and 169 targets at the global level. It has agreed on some additional indicators, including a few long sought by civil society organizations, and has upgraded or replaced indicators stalled at Tier III, a continual demand by Member States.

But five years into the implementation of the SDGs, this process has raised new concerns. How has it helped advance progress on achieving the SDGs, particularly at the national level? Has it been overtaken by other assessments, including by UN bodies and the Global Sustainable Development Report, which seek to examine the obstacles to progress not included in the global indicator framework, such as external and global constraints as well as trade-offs as progress towards one goal may mean regression on another?

The IAEG-SDGs has presented its 2020 comprehensive review, which began in January 2019, as “an opportunity to improve the indicator framework to help the global monitoring of the 2030 Agenda and provide the necessary guidance to countries, many of which are already well advanced in implementing their national framework and reporting platforms.” Among their stipulations for proposals, in addition to not increasing the total number of indicators, has been the need to “take into account investments already made at the national and international levels and not undermine ongoing efforts”.

This long-promised opportunity to re-open the global indicator framework for addition, deletion, revision and replacement, following an open consultation (8 September-6 October, 2019) has resulted in a number of changes that will be submitted to the Statistical Commission for their March 2020 meeting. In the interim, outstanding issues are to be resolved separately with agencies and “other interested parties”, including Member States. This is consistent with the consultation process in the development of the indicator framework: it has been characterized with frequent opportunities for input, less frequent clarity and transparency on the dynamics of decision-making.

Additional indicators – winners and losers

Following a list of 27 possible additional indicators issued in October 2019, 16 proposals were considered at the IAEG-SDGs 10th meeting. Out of these, seven will go forward, including one for SDG 2 on hunger and malnutrition, one for SDG 3 on health and well-being, one on education, three for SDG 10, on inequalities, and three for SDG 16, on peaceful and just societies (see box 1).

Several of these respond to long-standing demands by civil society organizations (CSOs). One was the addition of an indicator on anti-microbial resistance, long championed by public health advocates. Under SDG 3, Target 3.d: “Strengthen the capacity of all countries, particularly developing countries, for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks”, the new indicator will measure the percentage of bloodstream infections due to selected antimicrobial resistant organisms and will have WHO as “custodian agency”.

Also responding to CSO demands is the agreement on an additional indicator to measure inequalities under SDG 10. Under Target 10.4 on policies to achieve greater equality, two indicators were combined into a single indicator for submission to the Statistical Commission. One, the redistribution impact of fiscal policy, put forward by the Commitment to Equity Institute at Tulane University and Oxfam, and two, the Gini coefficient, put forward by the French labour federation CFDT and Oxfam, were combined to read: “Redistributive impact of fiscal policy (with Gini coefficient reported as second series in data base as it is a component of indicator).” Thus, interested researchers will find the Gini coefficient in the SDG indicators database, but it will not be named in the official list.

Another proposal for SDG 10, advocated by a range of CSOs (and put forward by CFDT and Oxfam), did not make the final list. This was the addition of the Palma ratio to measure Target 10.1 that promises “to increase the income of the bottom 40% of the population at a rate higher than the national average”. The current indicator, which deducts average national growth from that of the bottom 40% gives positive figures for many countries where the income of the poor has actually decreased, as a result of an even higher drop in the national average.

More successful was the inclusion of an indicator to measure access to civil justice under Target 16.3:  “Proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism.”

This appears to line up with a proposal by World Justice Project, UNDP and OECD for an indicator on “the accessibility, affordability, impartiality and effectiveness of civil justice systems”, using Legal Needs surveys which look at civil justice from perspective of people rather than institutions and capture diverse ways people seek to deal with their legal problems.

In addition, a proposal was considered for an additional indicator under Target 17.3 on mobilizing resources for developing countries, put forward by the OECD: “Total official support for sustainable development” (TOSSD).

This proposal, which was advanced mainly by developed countries at the March 2019 meeting of the UN Statistical Commission, has been criticized by many developing countries and CSOs as an effort to dilute ODA with a number of other forms of assistance, including humanitarian and disaster aid as well as South-South cooperation. As summarized by UNCTAD, TOSSD represents an effort to “add together a wide variety of flows into a single metric”, including publically leveraged private investments, which “makes little statistical sense, but does potentially provide an alternative to ODA measurements that some governments who are not meeting their ODA commitments could be tempted to use to undermine ODA in the future.”

Following objections that the proposal lacked an agreed methodology, the IAEG-SDGs noted that as it is important to measure aid flows, a two-year working group should be formed, “with more country and UN system involvement” to finalize the methodology, in particular the TOSSD components related to South-South cooperation, for the inclusion of this indicator in the global indicator framework in 2022.

Box 1: Seven additional indicators with custodian agencies

  • 2.2.2 – anaemia in women 15-49 by pregnancy status – WHO
  • 3.d.2 – reduce percentage of bloodstream infections due to selected antimicrobial resistant organisms – WHO
  • 4.1.2 completion rate – primary, lower secondary and upper secondary education – UNESCO/OECD
  • 10.4.2 – redistributive impact of fiscal policy (with Gini coefficient reported as second series in database as it is a component of the indicator – WB
  • 10.7.3. No. migrants killed while attempting to cross maritime, land and air borders – UNHCR (pending clarification on data sources)
  • 10.7.4 – proportion of the population who are refugees, by country of origin – UNHCR
  • 16.3.3 – proportion of the population who have experienced a dispute in the past two years and who accessed a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism, by type of mechanism – UNDP/OECD

Replacing/deleting stalled Tier III indicators

Six proposals to replace or delete indicators stalled at Tier III, are tentatively agreed.

Indicator 1.a.3 under SDGl 1, “Sum of total grants and non-debt creating inflows directly allocated to poverty reduction programmes as a proportion of GDP”, which lacks a custodian agency, is proposed to be replaced with total ODA that focus on poverty reduction as a share of the recipient country’s GNI- to be monitored by OECD as custodian agency. This is the same as the global proxy agreed in March 2019, and so would presumably replace it.

Under SDG 7 on access to sustainable energy, Tier III indicator 7.b.1, “Investments in energy efficiency as a proportion of GDP and the amount of FDI for infrastructure and technology to sustainable development services”, is proposed to be replaced by “Installed renewable electricity generating capacity in developing countries (in Watts per capita)”.

Four indicators to replace or delete those stalled at Tier III under SDG 13 on climate change have been agreed. Under Target 13.2 to integrate climate change measures into national policies, strategies and planning, one indicator is to be deleted, allowing the addition of a new indicator: “total greenhouse gas emissions per year”, which is currently used as a global proxy.

Another indicator stalled at Tier III, indicator 8.9.2 on the proportion of jobs in sustainable tourism industries out of total tourism jobs, is tentatively agreed for deletion without being replaced.

In addition, the IAEG-SDGs requests proposals to replace five stalled Tier III indicators, including  one under SDG 1, on government spending to sectors that specifically benefit women, and poor and vulnerable groups; one on SDG 11 on support to LDCs in building sustainable and resilient buildings; one under SDG 12, on support to developing countries on R&D for sustainable consumption and production; one under SDG 14, on countries ratifying accepting and implementing ocean related instruments that implement international law; and one under SDG 17, on number of science and/or technology cooperation agreements and programmes between countries.

Regrettably, this did not include a call for proposals to replace Target 17.17 on multi-stakeholder partnerships, despite the fact that the current indicator, which measures the amount of dollars committed to a) public-private partnerships and b) civil society partnerships is still at Tier III. The inadequacy and bias of this indicator have been pointed out by CSOs as well as Member States, favouring as it does partnerships that are measured by dollars not by excluded or discriminated-against communities and constituencies, nor by commercial practices that undermine the work of the United Nations and the achievement of the SDGs.

The CSO statement concerning Target 17.17 at the 2015 meeting in Bangkok noted that the OECD had already observed that “Indicators proposed so far only deal with public‐ private partnerships, and focus on specific projects and investments. The wording of Target 17.17 suggests a broader coverage of partnerships may be intended”. To address this problem the CSOs suggested that the value of public-partnerships should be measured not in terms of financial commitments but in terms of their contribution to sustainable development, proposing the indicator be replaced by two indicators:

“i) % of public‐(for profit) private partnerships that deliver greater value for achieving the SDGs than public or private finance alone, as measured via ex ante and ex post evaluations of impact against cost effectiveness, poverty and equity; ii) % of public‐(for profit) private partnerships that include full transparency of contracts, terms, and ex ante and ex post assessment results, and subject to the highest international environmental and social safeguards.”

Tier reclassification: an ongoing process

Seven requests for moving Tier III indicators up to Tier II were made at the 10th IAEG-SDGs meeting, including one on drug treatment under SDG 3 on health and well-being; one on physical or sexual harassment under SDG 11 on sustainable cities; ; four under SDG 14 on marine resources (including an index of floating plastic debris density), one on alignment with the Aichi Strategic Plan for Biodiversity under SDG 15 on biodiversity, and one on illicit financial flows under SDG 16 on peaceful, inclusive and just societies.

Regarding illicit financial flows, UNODC and UNCTAD provided an update on identifying the methodology for measuring indicator 16.4.1, which would enable it to be upgraded from Tier III to Tier II by 2020. Following pilots in five Latin American countries UNCTAD and UNODC are refining the statistical measurement framework and the definition of methods. An additional testing exercise will be conducted in selected countries of Central Asia in 2020, and at the end of 2020 the agencies will submit a joint paper to finalize a typology and a measurement framework.

Following the 10th IAEG-SDGs meeting, discussion has continued on requests to upgrade the Tier III indicators, mainly with Member States. In a series of Webex meetings, 16 indicators are currently under discussion. Given the complexity of many of the indicators, Member State concerns focused on the ability of countries, in both the global North and the global South, to conduct the surveys and compile and analyse the data. Several developing countries are requesting custodian agency support, and many indicators were accepted for reclassification to Tier II subject to simplification or refinement, which will allow countries to receive support in collecting and analysing the data.

One indicator that was not yet accepted for reclassification to Tier II is indicator 17.14.1, “Number of countries with mechanisms in place to enhance policy coherence of sustainable development”. The proposed composite indicator illustrates well the complex and transformative nature that the SDGs capture, as it requires coherence between local and national levels of government, across ministries and sectors, national and international policy makers, and across national boundaries. Its methodology embraces long term goals and interests of future generations embedded in national legal or strategic frameworks, including stakeholder consultations, and the identification and mitigation of trade-offs. Many countries are hesitant to reclassify, seeking results of additional pilots, in which several asked to participate.

Data disaggregation

Many CSO requests for improvements to the framework addressed disaggregation across different groups. In response, the IAEG-SDGs requested several advocacy groups to list their priorities for disaggregation – including gender, LBGT, youth, older persons, persons with disabilities, migrants, internally displaced and detained persons and urban/rural location. CSO statements on priorities, most of them resulting from stakeholder consultations are informative and available for action in a separate link on data disaggregation the IAEG website: [https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/iaeg-sdgs/disaggregation/].

The global indicator framework – UN reports raise questions

Despite all the work (and money) devoted to improving the global indicator framework and building the capacity of national statistical offices to monitor it, the reality is that many of the targets will not only not be met, but unless things change radically, will never be met.

Acknowledging the lack of progress towards achieving many of the SDGs, Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed has reiterated the need not only for more ambition, but in some cases a different approach, including with regard to data. She has pointed out that on average data is available for only 20 percent of the indicators, and even if available the data lacks sufficient disaggregation to be useful for policy makers.

These concerns have informed two important reports, both of which raise questions about the way forward, including about the way progress towards the SDGs is measured.

The Sustainable Development Goals Report 2019

In July, the UN released the 2019 UN Secretary-General’s report on sustainable development, pointing to the enormous challenges facing all countries and developing countries in particular.

Among its findings:

  • We will miss the poverty target – More than half of the world’s poor live in countries affected by conflict and one in five children now live in extreme poverty; hunger is on the rise; a large number of countries are seriously stressed in terms of water and sanitation, especially in the Pacific region and greenhouse gas emissions are rising.
  • We are also moving backwards on some of the goals, particularly Goal 8 on decent work and Goal 12 on responsible consumption and production.
  • This calls for a different way of thinking about development: the principle of universality means that progress cannot be defined by comparing countries in different stages of development but by deliberate policy-making.
  • There is a need for International cooperation among countries sharing rivers, lakes and water aquifers, in terms not just on indicators, but regarding solidarity, and collective action.

This reality concerning lack of progress also suggests the need to go beyond the global indicator framework to look at obstacles at the global level that may be impeding progress.

2019 Global Sustainable Development Report

More far-reaching was the long-anticipated Global Sustainable Development Report. This report was mandated by Member States in the Rio+20 outcome document, recognizing that the traditional siloed-approach to development would not be adequate and that the future agenda would be unprecedented in ambition. In 2016, Member States decided that the report should be produced once every four years, to inform the high-level deliberations at the General Assembly, and that it should be written by an Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the Secretary-General.

Composed of 15 experts representing a variety of backgrounds, scientific disciplines and institutions, ensuring geographical and gender balance, the Group conducted an independent assessment of progress in achieving the SDGs, based on scientific evidence, and examined over 65 scientific assessments and flagship reports to determine the distance from achieving the SDGs in different countries as well as the likelihood of never achieving them.

One study the report examined looked at the likelihood of reaching each goal in five main regions: the USA, OECD (excluding USA), China, BRISE (Brazil, Russia, India, South Africa and 10 other emerging economies) and the rest of the world. It found that all regions were likely to remain furthest away from meeting targets on goals relating to inequality, responsible consumption and production, and nature (climate, life on land, life on water). With regard to country-level assessments and forecasts, a 2019 study found that no country was on track to meet all of the goals by 2030. While data availability by country and by goal varied, no goal had more than 50 percent of countries on track to reach it by 2030.

Most worrisome, however, were the report’s findings on targets for which recent trends are actually in the wrong direction, either because implementation has been unable to reverse pre-existing deterioration, or because “world recovery from the 2008 economic crisis has brought back negative trends that had been stalled, such as obesity, inequality, greenhouse gas emissions, land degradation, biodiversity loss, wildlife trafficking, absolute material footprints, overfishing and deterioration of coastal waters”.

Several of those negative trending targets are critical, not only because they are hard to change but also because of their impact across the 2030 Agenda as a whole, impeding progress on other goals and targets. The report identifies four trends that are particularly alarming: “rising inequalities, accelerating climate change, biodiversity loss, and the increasing amount of waste from human activity that are overwhelming processing capacities”. The report adds that “some trends presage a move towards the crossing of negative tipping points, which would lead to dramatic changes in the conditions of the Earth system, in ways that are irreversible on time scales meaningful for society.”

What the report concludes is that the current development model is not sustainable; “progress made in the last two decades is in danger of being reversed through worsening social inequalities and potentially irreversible declines in the natural environment that sustains us.” A serious course change is needed, starting with decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation and reducing social and gender inequalities of all kinds.

So if the model is wrong, which women’s and human rights advocates, CSOs, environmental scientists and more recently some economists have long argued, what does this mean for the measurement of progress?

The report highlights six key “entry points” where scientific expertise can be brought to bear and collaborative action can accelerate progress towards the goals: 1. Strengthening human well-being and capabilities;
2. Shifting towards sustainable and just economies;
3. Building sustainable food systems and healthy nutrition patterns;
4. Achieving energy decarbonization and universal access to energy;
5. Promoting sustainable urban and peri-urban development;
6. Securing the global environmental commons.

In all of those areas, it argues “scientific expertise and innovation can be brought to bear and yield impressive results”.
The report acknowledges that the commitments needed for transformation, and the interventions to bring them about, look very different in developed and developing countries.

Difficult – not only different – choices on measurement

These observations and findings present existential challenges for content of the global indicator framework:

  • Should the 2020 Review be a decision on its utility rather than its comprehensiveness?
  • How useful is the global indicator framework in assisting countries to achieve the SDGs, given the likelihood that collecting and compiling the data for each indicator will perpetuate measurement in silos, obscuring, trade-offs and externalities?
  • Why has it taken center stage not only for reporting but also in terms of investment?

Part of the rationale offered for investment in the global indicator framework is to build the capacity of national statistics offices, now underway in almost all developing countries. But the experience of various initiatives related to progress on the SDGs suggest it is needlessly complicated and despite efforts to simplify some of the indicators, limit them to national level only, and step up support to national statistics offices, will compete with more substantive capacity development efforts, including social and scientific research.

  • Is there a better way to build the capacity of national statistics offices to measure progress towards their own sustainable development goals?
  • Should the international community invest in natural and social science institutions based in developing countries, as the Global Sustainable Development Report concludes?

What are the implications for achieving the SDGs, with numerous obstacles and unexamined trade-offs? If, as these and other reports have suggested, the global indicator framework has become a distraction, occupying a tremendous amount of time by both the statistical community and Member States, but still generally unworkable at the national level, should the IAEG- SDGs go back to the drawing board?

This is the (unspoken) question that will confront Member States at the UN Statistical Commission in March 2010 in the consideration and assessment of how to measure the SDGs.

The post Global Indicator Framework for SDGs: value added or time to start over? appeared first on Global Policy Watch.

Kategorien: english, Ticker

2019 Human Development Report says business as usual will not solve new generation of inequalities #HDR2019

weitzenegger.de - 9. Dezember 2019 - 13:58
“Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st Century”

UNDP’s 2019 Human Development Report (#HDR2019) argues that a new generation of inequalities is opening up, around education, and around technology and climate change which could trigger a ‘new great divergence’ in society. For example, in countries with very high human development, subscriptions to fixed broadband are growing 15 times faster and the proportion of adults with tertiary education is growing more than six times faster than in countries with low human development.

Inequalities are entrenched in our societies. Parents’ advantages in income, health and education shape their children’s lives, often leading to “hoarding” of opportunities across generations, the report shows. For example, children in professional families in the United States are exposed to three times as many words as children in families receiving welfare benefits, with a knock-on effect on test scores later in life.

“Different triggers are bringing people onto the streets — the cost of a train ticket, the price of petrol, demands for political freedoms, the pursuit of fairness and justice. This is the new face of inequality, and as this Human Development Report sets out, inequality is not beyond solutions,” says UNDP Administrator, Achim Steiner.

The 2019 Human Development Report (HDR), entitled “Beyond income, beyond averages, beyond today: inequalities in human development in the 21st Century,” says that just as the gap in basic living standards is narrowing for millions of people, the necessities to thrive have evolved.

A new generation of inequalities is opening up, around education, and around technology and climate change – two seismic shifts that, unchecked, could trigger a ‘new great divergence’ in society of the kind not seen since the Industrial Revolution, according to the report. In countries with very high human development, for example, subscriptions to fixed broadband are growing 15 times faster and the proportion of adults with tertiary education is growing more than six times faster than in countries with low human development.

“What used to be ‘nice-to-haves’, like going to university or access to broadband, are increasingly important for success, but left only with the basics, people find the rungs knocked out of their ladder to the future,” argues UNDP’s Pedro Conceição, Director of the HDR Office, which pioneers a more holistic way to measure countries’ progress beyond economic growth alone. The report analyzes inequality in three steps: beyond income, beyond averages, and beyond today. But the problem of inequality is not beyond solutions, it says, proposing a battery of policy options to tackle it.

Thinking beyond income The 2019 Human Development Index (HDI) and its sister index, the 2019 Inequality-Adjusted Human Development Index, set out that the unequal distribution of education, health and living standards stymied countries’ progress. By these measures, 20 per cent of human development progress was lost through inequalities in 2018. The report, therefore, recommends policies that look at but also go beyond income, including:

  • Early childhood and lifelong investment: Inequality begins even before birth and can accumulate, amplified by differences in health and education, into adulthood. For example, children in professional families in the United States are exposed to three times as many words as children in families receiving welfare benefits, with a knock-on effect on test scores later in life. Policies to address it, therefore, must also start at or before birth, including investing in young children’s learning, health and nutrition.
  • Productivity: Such investments must continue through a person’s life, when they are earning in the labour market and after. Countries with a more productive workforce tend to have a lower concentration of wealth at the top, for example, enabled by policies that support stronger unions, set the right minimum wage, create a path from the informal to the formal economy, invest in social protection, and attract women to the workplace. Policies to enhance productivity alone are not enough, however. The growing market power of employers is linked to a declining income share for workers. Antitrust and other policies are key to address the imbalances of market power.
  • Public spending and fair taxation: the report argues that taxation cannot be looked at on its own, but it should be part of a system of policies, including public spending on health, education, and alternatives to a carbon-intensive lifestyle. More and more, domestic policies are framed by global corporate tax discussions, highlighting the importance of new principles for international taxation, to help ensure fair play, avoid a race to the bottom in corporate tax rates, especially as digitalization brings new forms of value to the economy, and to detect and deter tax evasion.
Looking beyond averages

Averages often hide what is really going on in society, says the HDR, and while they can be helpful in telling a larger story, much more detailed information is needed to create policies to tackle inequality effectively. This is true in tackling the multiple dimensions of poverty, in meeting the needs of those being left furthest behind such as people with disabilities, and in promoting gender equality and empowerment. For example:

  • Gender equality: Based on current trends, it will take 202 years to close the gender gap in economic opportunity alone, cites the report. While the silence on abuse is breaking, the glass ceiling for women to progress is not. Instead, it is a story of bias and backlash. For example, at the very time when progress is meant to be accelerating to reach the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, the report’s 2019 Gender Inequality Index says progress actually is slowing.

A new “social norms index” in the Report says that in half of the countries assessed, gender bias has grown in recent years. About fifty per cent of people across 77 countries, said they thought men make better political leaders than women, while more than 40 per cent felt that men made better business executives. Therefore, policies that address underlying biases, social norms and power structures are key. For example, policies to balance the distribution of care, particularly for children, are crucial, says the report, given that much of the difference in earning between men and women throughout their lifecycle is generated before the age of 40.

Planning beyond today Looking beyond today, the report asks how inequality may change in future, looking particularly at two seismic shifts that will shape life up to the 22nd century:

  • The climate crisis: As a range of global protests demonstrate, policies crucial to tackling the climate crisis like putting a price on carbon can be mis-managed, increasing perceived and actual inequalities for the less well-off, who spend more of their income on energy-intensive goods and services than their richer neighbours. If revenues from carbon pricing are ‘recycled’ to benefit  taxpayers as part of a broader social policy package, the authors argue, then such policies could reduce rather than increase inequality.
  • Technological transformation: Technology, including in the form of renewables and energy efficiency, digital finance and digital health solutions, offers a glimpse of how the future of inequality may break from the past, if opportunities can be seized quickly and shared broadly. There is historical precedent for technological revolutions to carve deep, persistent inequalities – the Industrial Revolution not only opened up the great divergence between industrialized countries and those who depended on primary commodities; it also launched production pathways that culminated in the  climate crisis.

The change that is coming goes beyond climate, says the report, but a ‘new great divergence’, driven by artificial intelligence and digital technologies, is not inevitable. The HDR recommends social protection policies that would, for example, ensure fair compensation for ‘crowdwork’, investment in lifelong learning to help workers adjust or change to new occupations, and international consensus on how to tax digital activities – all part of building a new, secure and stable digital economy as a force for convergence, not divergence, in human development.

“This Human Development Report sets out how systemic inequalities are deeply damaging our society and why,” said Steiner. “Inequality is not just about how much someone earns compared to their neighbour. It is about the unequal distribution of wealth and power: the entrenched social and political norms that are bringing people onto
the streets today, and the triggers that will do so in the future unless something changes. Recognizing the real face
of inequality is a first step; what happens next is a choice that each leader must make.”

Download Human Development Report 2019 English French Spanish
Kategorien: english

Arab Spring reloaded

D+C - 9. Dezember 2019 - 10:13
In the Middle East and North Africa, young people are taking to the streets to fight for better living conditions

The images resemble one another. In the Arab world, large numbers of predominantly young people have taken to the streets, insisting on their right to a decent life – just like they did eight years ago. Mass protests occasionally flare up in individual countries, but this is the first time since 2011 that we are witnessing a series of them. They began in December 2018 in Sudan with what were at first local protests against the tripling of the price of bread. Local protests triggered rallies all over the nation, and they led to the toppling of Omar al-Bashir, the dictator, who had been in power for three decades.

In Algeria in February 2019, tens of thousands of people rose up when President Abd al-Aziz Bouteflika, who is elderly and has long been unfit to serve, announced his candidacy for a fifth term in office. He was also swept aside. In Egypt in September 2019, information about the exorbitant self-enrichment of the president’s family sparked large demonstrations. In Lebanon in October 2019, a tax on internet-based calls was the straw that broke the camel’s back and drove people into the streets. And since early October 2019, people in Iraq have been demonstrating in huge numbers against their precarious living conditions. On 30 November, Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi resigned. In the meantim, anger about high fuel prices had driven crowds to rally in Iran, Iraq’s non-Arab neighbour. People’s economic pain has dramatically worsened under US sanctions. In the eyes of the demonstrators, their own regime must bear some of the blame.

As in 2011, the current protests were sparked above all by social grievances, then quickly grew into attacks on the entire political system. And just like in the past, those in power are responding with a mix of brutal violence and half-hearted concessions.

Most of the countries in question have experienced war and/or civil strife. They are now in a phase of economic weakness and are subject to the influence of external powers. They have little fiscal leeway because the economies are barely growing, their public sectors are bloated and inefficient, and the governments are heavily indebted (particularly in Lebanon and Sudan). The governments are trying to restore their short-term capacity to act by delaying overdue state investments and cutting social services.

Investors are not investing

Private, and especially foreign companies are also holding back investments, so steady demographic pressure is producing an army of unemployed people. Exorbitant levels of youth unemployment are particularly explosive. According to the International Monetary Fund, in all of the region’s countries, youth unemployment remains steady at 25 to 30 % or higher.  

Half a million young people stream onto the labour market every year in Iraq, for example. A lack of employment opportunities combined with a worsening supply of water, electric power and other public services are creating a climate of dangerous social tension. Things can erupt surprisingly fast.  

It is particularly risky when social grievances escalate in conditions of fragile statehood.  That is especially true of Iraq and Lebanon, not only because of their proximity to civil-war-torn Syria, but also because both countries have deep sectarian divides. Whereas in Iraq the Shias have dominated the government since the US invasion of 2003, in Lebanon, the Shia Hezbollah is a state within the state.

Throughout the region, Iran’s Shia regime is supporting Shia organisations and militias, whereas Saudi Arabia funds Iran’s Sunni opponents (see Maysam Behravesh in Focus section of D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2019/10).

Against this backdrop, it represents a welcome surprise that Shias and Sunnis are rallying together in Iraq, and in Lebanon, they are joined by Christians. Across the faith communities, people are uniting to challenge the political establishment.

That they are overcoming religious difference is encouraging, but the violent response by security forces in Iraq brings back bad memories of the repression of the protests in Syria in 2012. When this comment was finalised in late November, some 300 people had been killed.

Things have remained relatively peaceful in Lebanon so far. However, it remains to be seen how the radical Shia Hezbollah will respond to public discontent in the future, and what impact the mass protests will have on Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two regional powers. Forty-five percent of all terrorist attacks worldwide take place in the MENA region. Forty-seven percent of all displaced people and 57 % of all refugees who have had to leave their home countries are from it too.

The MENA region will only find its way back to peace and development once its social issues have been resolved. In order to do that, its countries will have to overcome structural barriers to development, including the lack of international competitiveness, ossified public administrations and the people’s exclusion from economic opportunities and participation in public life.

The EU should make its contribution. It should not only invest in development cooperation, but above all conduct its trade relations with countries in this region on a more equitable playing field.

The second precondition for sustainable development in the Middle East is a resolution of the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That cannot be achieved by applying ever more pressure on Iran. What is needed is the framework of a comprehensive regional peace strategy that takes into account the interests of all parties involved.

The EU must break away from their currently passive role as an outraged observer and set an appropriate foreign policy in motion, engaging the international community. There is no other way to achieve sustainable social development in this challenging world region which is quite close to Europe.  

Nassir Djafari is an economist and freelance writer.
nassir.djafari@gmx.de

Kategorien: english

Serious discrimination

D+C - 9. Dezember 2019 - 10:01
Current frustration with Twitter in India shows why the big internet multinationals require global regulation

In India, social-media platforms are very important. Hundreds of millions use them, and the mainstream media have largely caved into the Hindu-supremacist government. It therefore was a shock to see that Twitter is not the open space it pretends to be. People from the Dalit community, the lowest caste group, have ample reason to accuse Twitter of casteism and discrimination.

India’s caste system is an age-old social hierarchy that fosters discrimination and violence. In the past, Dalits were called “untouchables” and later “Harijans”. Officially, India’s constitution abolished “untouchability” after independence in 1947, and a law of 1989 is supposed to prevent atrocities against Dalits. Another law mandates affirmative action to compensate for – and facilitate an escape from – poverty and marginalisation. That this law is still needed today, shows how deeply entrenched caste discrimination is.

The advent of the internet inspired hopes for more inclusion. Platforms that give access to everyone such as Facebook and Twitter were expected to serve as open spaces that give voice to marginalised people. As we learned in the past few weeks, however, Twitter has not been levelling the playing field. Rather, the accusations are that it has been reinforcing the caste hierarchy by halting the verification of accounts owned by Dalits. Verification means that Twitter confirms that an account of considerable public interest is authentic and belongs to a real person. Verified accounts get a blue tick, which enhances their credibility. If these accusations are true, that would amount to serious discrimination.

In response, Dalit activists began to campaign against Manish Maheshwari, Twitter’s managing director in India. They asked Twitter to expel him, but so far without success.

Dalit activists allege that high-caste people get verification easily. A prominent example is Jay Shah, the son of Home Minister Amit Shah. Though he barely had any followers on Twitter and not tweeted even once, his account got the blue tick. By contrast, anti-establishment people with a history of many relevant tweets and much larger followings did not get it. Indeed, Twitter has a tendency of using small pretexts to limit their outreach by locking, restricting and even suspending their accounts. At the same time, the platform tends to remain soft on trolls and hate-peddlers who are close to the Hindu-chauvinist government (see my essay in D+C/E+Z e-Paper 2018/05, Focus section). These people systematically denigrate Dalits, demonise Muslims and agitate against other minorities. Twitter has tried to “clarify” its position, but to its critics, its partisan leaning is obvious.

It is similarly worrisome that, as we also learned in November, over a dozen Indian politicians, activists, lawyers and scholars were spied on. Sophisticated software called Pegasus was used to track them online via WhatsApp. Pegasus is owned by NSO, an Israeli software firm, which has recently been sued by WhatsApp in the USA because of privacy breaches. In response, NSO stated that it does not support Pegasus use against human-rights activists or journalists, and only sells it to “government intelligence and law enforcement agencies to help them fight terrorism and serious crime”. Did India’s government use this technology to monitor people it does not like?

In the USA, public debate is focusing on whether social-media platforms should allow politicians to spread lies in advertising. According to Facebook, which allows such ads, this is ultimately a matter of freedom of speech. Twitter, by contrast, has banned political advertising. But the underlying and more important question remains open: Who is the proper authority for taking such crucial decisions: self-regulating multinationals, the government or an independent third-party body?

Issues of fake news and hate speech are even more pressing in developing countries where public institutions tend to be weaker. Political advertising, moreover, is not the only problem. India’s social-media sites apparently have a growing pro-government bias. We need global regulations to ensure that democracies around the world are not undermined by internet multinationals that ultimately care about nothing else than their profits.

ArFa Khanum Sherwani is senior editor with the independent news website TheWire.
Twitter: @khanumarfa
https://thewire.in/

Kategorien: english

Limits to learning: when climate action contributes to social conflict.

EADI Debating Development Research - 9. Dezember 2019 - 9:28
By Dirk Jan Koch and Marloes Verholt REDD+, or Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation, has been one of the holy grails of international efforts to combat climate change for the past 10 years: over 10 billion dollars have been pledged to this cause by donor countries. Although REDD+ aims to reduce deforestation rates …
Kategorien: english, Ticker

Inequality threatening human development, new global UN report warns

UN ECOSOC - 9. Dezember 2019 - 6:30
Despite global progress in tackling poverty, hunger and disease, a “new generation of inequalities” indicates that many societies are not working as they should, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) argues in its latest report released on Monday. 
Kategorien: english

Reimagining adaptation: opportunities to manage risk and build resilience in an interconnected world

ODI - 9. Dezember 2019 - 0:00
What are the key considerations for a future world where climate adaptation transcends borders?
Kategorien: english

Seiten

SID Hamburg Aggregator – english abonnieren