Deutsches Institut für Entwicklungspolitik / Analysen

This chapter discusses the declared exchange-rate policies of East Asian central banks and compares these with the de facto policies. Central banks that officially proclaim a fixed or managed exchange rate tend to intervene more in foreign exchange markets than central banks which officially follow a floating regime. However, even central banks that have implemented inflation-targeting frameworks with floating rates appear to carry out interventions. Several countries that self-describe their exchange-rate regime as “managed floating” appear to have been heavily engaged in foreign exchange-market interventions.

This paper empirically examines the link between the cost of sovereign borrowing and climate risk for 40 advanced and emerging economies. Controlling for a large set of domestic and global factors, the paper shows that both vulnerability and resilience to climate risk are important factors driving the cost of sovereign borrowing at the global level. Overall, we find that vulnerability to the direct effects of climate change matter substantially more than climate risk resilience in terms of the implications for sovereign borrowing costs. Moreover, the magnitude of the effect on bond yields is progressively higher for countries deemed highly vulnerable to climate change. Impulse response analysis from a set of panel structural VAR models indicates that the reaction of bond yields to shocks imposed on climate vulnerability and resilience become permanent after around 12 quarters, with high risk economies experiencing larger permanent effects on yields than other country groups.

This paper empirically examines the reaction of global financial markets across 38 economies to the COVID-19 outbreak, with a special focus on the dynamics of capital flow across 14 emerging market economies. Using daily data over the period 4 January 2010 to 30 April 2020 and controlling for a host of domestic and global macroeconomic and financial factors, we use a fixed effects panel approach and a structural VAR framework to show that emerging markets have been more heavily affected than advanced economies. In particular, emerging economies in Asia and Europe have experienced the sharpest impact on stocks, bonds, and exchange rates due to COVID-19, as well as abrupt and substantial capital outflows. Our results indicate that fiscal stimulus packages introduced in response to COVID-19, as well as quantitative easing by central banks, have helped to restore overall investor confidence through reducing bond yields and boosting stock prices. Our findings also highlight the role that global factors and developments in the world’s leading financial centers have on financial conditions in EMEs. Importantly, the impact of COVID-19 related quantitative easing measures by central banks in advanced countries, which helped to lower sovereign bond yields and prop up stock markets at home, extended to EMEs, notably in relation to stabilizing capital flow dynamics. Going forward, while the ultimate resolution of COVID-19 may be expected to lead to a market correction as uncertainty declines, our impulse response analysis suggests that there may be some permanent effects on financial markets and capital flows as a result of COVID-19, particularly in EMEs.

This collection provides a comprehensive review of the tools and methodologies for Environmental Risk Analysis used by a few dozen financial institutions, including banks, asset managers and insurance companies. These tools and methodologies cover a wide-range of environmental/climate scenario analyses and stress tests as well as environmental, social and governance analysis and natural capital risk assessment, that can be used to analyze the potential impact on financial institutions from transition and physical risks associated with climate and other environmental factors.

Increasing resilience needs to be one of the main guiding principles when rebuilding our economies and societies after the crisis. We need to ensure we are better prepared to withstand future pandemics but also the other major looming threat to humanity—climate change.

We call for strengthening the Global Financial Safety Net (GFSN) to manage the economic effects of the outbreak of COVID-19, in particular the massive capital outflows from emerging market and developing economies and the global shortage of dollar liquidity. Both the United Nations (UN) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimate that emerging market and developing countries (EMDEs) need an immediate $2.5 trillion, yet the financing available to them is just $700 to $971 billion. To meet these immediate needs we propose to: (i) broaden the coverage of the Federal Reserve currency swaps; (ii) issue at least $500 billion of Special Drawing Rights through the IMF; (iii) improve the IMF’s precautionary and emergency facilities; (iv) establish a multilateral swap facility at the IMF; (v) increase the resources and geographic coverage of Regional Financial Arrangements; (vi) coordinate capital flow management measures; (vii) initiate debt restructuring and relief initiatives; and (viii) request that credit-rating agencies stop making downgrades during the emergency. It argues that beyond these immediate measures, leaders should swiftly move to address the following structural gaps in the GFSN: (i) agree on a quota reform at the IMF; (ii) create an appropriate Sovereign Debt Restructuring Regime; (iii) expand surveillance activity; and (iv) adopt IMF governance reform and strengthen its relations with all agents of the GFSN. All of these immediate and intermediate reforms must be calibrated toward a just transition to a more stable, inclusive, and sustainable global economy

Key messages:
• Africa has attracted a lot of attention in recent decades. China’s rising footprint in the continent  has  resulted  in  increased  engagement  from  other  global  powers,  including  the EU, leading to a ‘competition’. It needs to be leveraged to speed progress on the continent.
• The COVID-19 pandemic adds yet another layer to the already complex topic of China’s foreign policy. But it also offers an opportunity to carefully examine some of the dominant narratives on China-Africa and also appreciate the perspectives on the African side.
• Prevailing myths of Chinese engagement in Africa represent a caricatured view which is neither nuanced nor does justice to the wide range of experiences in this rapidly evolving relationship.
• The perceived need by the EU to rebalance relations with Africa is inexorably linked to the increased competition of interests in the continent, coming especially from China.
• In these debates, however, African countries should not be viewed as silent spectators as competition between world powers unfolds. They are keen to avoid getting caught in these rivalries, but have strategic levers at hand to push competing powers to cooperate for the development of their continent.
 

This article analyses the evolution of the European Union’s development policy in relation to civil society. Based on a review of overall policy trends, strategies and practices in Central Asia, it demonstrates how the EU’s development policy has gradually moved from a focus on European NGOs towards civil society organisations, broadly defined and increasingly associated with the private sector and local authorities. While the EU’s policy recognises the intrinsic value of civil society in all its diversity and promotes partnership, its operational practices show a pragmatic preference for working with professionalised organisations in service delivery roles.

This Policy Brief discusses Africa’s diversification and policies of economic transformation through the lens of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) which is a potentially important vehicle for speeding up the continent’s diversification and a lever for win-win G20-Africa economic relations. The Brief argues in favour of broadening Africa-G20 cooperation that is currently limited to a few initiatives and an observer status for the African Union (AU) and New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Moreover, the AfCFTA presents opportunities for both G20 and Africa’s leadership to add value to development of Africa’s young and growing population as well as boost its legitimacy, credibility and relevance to global development through shaped future trade relations.

Am 15. September feiert die Welt eines der großen menschlichen Erfolgsmodelle: die Demokratie. Als die Vereinten Nationen vor dreizehn Jahren dieses Datum zum Internationalen Tag der Demokratie erklärten, wurden sie von einer globalen Demokratisierungswelle getragen. Mittlerweile ist die Demokratie von Innen und Außen unter Druck geraten und zum ersten Mal seit fast 20 Jahren gibt es mehr Autokratien als Demokratien auf der Welt. Internationaler Demokratieschutz ist nun das Gebot der Stunde.

Für zwei Dekaden schien der Trend zu mehr und stärkeren Demokratien eindeutig und unumkehrbar. Inzwischen gerät diese Herrschaftsform zunehmend unter Druck und wir beobachten einen globalen Autokratisierungstrend. Die globale Finanzkrise von 2008 und „Migrationskrisen“ in Europa haben in vielen Ländern zur Entstehung populistischer und nationalistischer Bewegungen beigetragen, die sich auch gegen demokratische Grundwerte wie politische Gleichheit oder Minderheitenschutz richten. In Ländern wie den USA, Indien, Brasilien oder Polen werden etablierte demokratische Institutionen und Prozesse hart attackiert: so wird die Unabhängigkeit von Wahlkommissionen geschwächt oder Gesetze benutzt, um die Pressefreiheit einzuschränken, religiöse Gruppen zu diskriminieren oder politische Opposition zu verfolgen. Und auch die SARS-CoV2-Pandemie hat ihren Beitrag geleistet: Einige Staaten nutzen die Ausnahmesituation, um ihre Machtbefugnisse auszuweiten und zivilgesellschaftliches Engagement einzuschränken.

Neu ist auch wie Autokratisierung verläuft, sprich existierende demokratische Institutionen und Mechanismen abgebaut werden. Im Gegensatz zum klassischen Umsturz durch einen Putsch sind aktuelle Prozesse weniger geprägt von plötzlichen Zusammenbrüchen demokratischer Institutionen, sondern von ihrer schrittweisen Erosion. Das führt in den betroffenen Ländern zu einem langsamen Abrutschen in hybride Herrschaftsformen.  Hier werden Wahlen zwar regelmäßig abgehalten, aber Bürger- und Freiheitsrechte sowie Rechtsstaatlichkeit nicht respektiert und geschützt.

In den 1990ern bekam die internationale Förderung von Demokratie Auftrieb. Zuletzt hat sie jedoch auf vielen politischen Agenden an Bedeutung verloren – auch aufgrund einer Versicherheitlichung internationaler Politik, wie im Kontext der Terrorbekämpfung. Die derzeitige globale Lage der Demokratie zeigt allerdings, dass Demokratieförderung weiterhin wichtig bleibt und es darüber hinaus notwendig ist, demokratische Errungenschaften zu schützen.

Eine zentrale Erkenntnis in der Demokratieförderung ist, dass der alleinige Fokus auf Wahlen nicht ausreicht. Autokratisierung findet vor allem zwischen Wahlen statt, indem politische Teilhabe, aber insbesondere auch Bürger- und Freiheitsrechte sowie Rechtsstaatlichkeit sukzessive eingeschränkt werden. Ohne diese grundlegenden Freiheiten verliert jedoch auch der Urnengang an Bedeutung. Besonders Besorgnis erregend ist, dass die Erosion dieser Institutionen und Freiheiten die Wehrhaftigkeit der Demokratie einschränken. Wenn die Gewaltenteilung untergraben und die sogenannten Checks and Balances zwischen demokratischen Institutionen außer Kraft gesetzt werden, verliert die Demokratie ihre Wehrhaftigkeit. Zum einen kann sich die Demokratie nicht selbst verteidigen, da zum Beispiel die parlamentarische Kontrolle eingeschränkt und die Unabhängigkeit der Justiz ausgehöhlt wird. Zum anderen kann auch die Bevölkerung die Demokratie nicht verteidigen, da demokratische Mittel wie Klagen gegen verfassungsfeindliche Maßnahmen, Demonstrationen oder öffentliche Kritik dann nicht mehr möglich sind oder Repressalien nach sich ziehen. Auch hier haben die Lock-down Maßnahmen während der Pandemie autokratischen Bestrebungen in die Hände gespielt. Daher ist die internationale Gemeinschaft gefragt, sich möglichst frühzeitig im Demokratieschutz zu engagieren und die grundlegenden Pfeiler von Demokratie vor subtiler Zersetzung zu bewahren. Wie Demokratie effektiv geschützt werden kann ist jedoch keine einfache Frage. Wissenschaftler*innen und Entscheidungsträger*innen werden sie gemeinsam beantworten müssen.

Weltweit sehen wir, dass Bürger*innen nicht tatenlos zusehen, sondern aktiv und oft unter Einsatz ihrer Freiheit oder sogar ihres Lebens auf die Straße gehen oder sich anderweitig für Demokratie engagieren: Sie wird eingefordert. Von Ecuador bis Hong Kong, von Belarus bis zum Sudan oder Mali streiten Menschen für ihre Bürger-, Freiheits- und Menschenrechte, für Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Demokratie. Dies zeigt, dass Demokratie als Idee widerstandsfähig und universell ist. Um diesen Menschen die Hand zu reichen bedarf es in der internationalen Gemeinschaft eines Verständnisses, Demokratie nicht nur zu fördern, sondern sie auch aktiv zu schützen.

Since 2016, Germany has been the second largest contributor to the United Nations development system (UNDS) for development-related and humanitarian activities, after the United States of America. The biggest increase in Germany’s funding has been in the form of earmarked contributions, that is, funding with specified geographic and thematic purposes. While humanitarian funding to agencies such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Food Programme (WFP) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) accounts for the bulk of Germany’s contributions to the United Nations (UN), development-related funding for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women also experienced a sharp rise. More recently, core contributions, which can be used by multilateral organisations with greater discretion, have also increased, most notably as part of the coronavirus (COVID-19) emergency response.
The significant increase signals that Germany places trust in the UN, including in times of crisis, and deems it to be of real importance. It is now time for Germany to more explicitly recognise its strategic interest in a strong and effective UNDS that can reinforce its foreign policies regarding stabilisation, reconstruction, refugees and the climate. Through multilateral organisations states can achieve more than they can alone. Although earmarked funding has helped the UNDS to expand its scope and scale, in the most prominent forms it has many negative repercussions in terms of efficiency, effectiveness and legitimacy.
Earmarking also comes with direct costs to German actors, who face challenges stemming from the multitude of earmarked funding arrangements and their administrative burden. In addition, the German government presents itself in a fragmented manner with regard to the UNDS, with differences across and within ministries and implementing agencies.
For Germany, being in the prominent position of second largest contributor to the UNDS, at a time when the largest contributor is withdrawing funding, comes with responsibilities and opportunities. To be an effective supporter of multilateralism, the German government needs to get its own house in order.
• It should view its allocation decisions as a means towards strengthening multilateralism and supporting UN reforms, and to that end it should work towards a better balanced funding mix with greater shares of flexible funds.
• It should more clearly communicate and justify its increased engagement in the UNDS to the German public and increase the coherence of its multilateral efforts.
• It should assess the hidden costs that arise through the use of implementing agencies and improve guidance on earmarked funding in line with commitments made in the context of the Grand Bargain (2016) and UN Funding Compact (2019).
• It should stabilise the recently raised levels of core contributions to UN development agencies, recognise the strategic importance of core contributions and also make greater use of softly earmarked forms of funding.

1. Biodiversity conservation interventions have long confronted challenges of human poverty. The ethical foundations of international conservation, including conservation's relationship with poverty, are currently being interrogated in animated debates about the future of conservation. However, while some commentary exists, empirical analysis of conservation practitioner perspectives on poverty, and their ethical justification, has been lacking thus far.

2. We used Q methodology complemented by more detailed qualitative analysis to examine empirically perspectives on poverty and conservation within the conservation movement, and compare these empirical discourses to positions within the literature. We sampled conservation practitioners in western headquartered organizations, and in Bolivia, China, Nepal and Uganda, thereby giving indications of these perspectives in Latin America, Asia and Africa.

3. While there are some elements of consensus, for instance the principle that the poor should not shoulder the costs of conserving a global public good, the three elicited discourses diverge in a number of ways. Anthropocentrism and ecocentrism differentiate the perspectives, but beyond this, there are two distinct framings of poverty which conservation practitioners variously adhere to.

4. The first prioritizes welfare, needs and sufficientarianism, and is more strongly associated with the China, Nepal and Uganda case studies. The second framing of poverty focuses much more on the need for ‘do no harm’ principles and safeguards, and follows an internationalized human rights‐oriented discourse.

5. There are also important distinctions between discourses about whether poverty is characterized as a driver of degradation, or more emphasis is placed on overconsumption and affluence in perpetuating conservation threats. This dimension particularly illuminates shifts in thinking in the 30 or so years since the Brundtland report, and reflecting new global realities.

6. This analysis serves to update, parse and clarify differing perspectives on poverty within the conservation, and broader environmental movement, to illuminate consensual aspects between perspectives, and reveal where critical differences remain.

Die Europäische Union kündigte bei der Weltklimakonferenz in Madrid 2019 ihren Europäischen „Green Deal” an, in dem sie das klare Ziel ausdrückt, Europa bis 2050 zum weltweit ersten klimaneutralen Kontinent zu machen. Bereits in der Vergangenheit hat sich die EU bei Klima- und Nachhaltigkeitsaspekten als global führend angesehen und sich kontinuierlich nach innen wie auch bei internationalen Verhandlungen für Fortschritte eingesetzt. Mit dem „Green Deal” erkennt die EU somit auch an, dass ihr Handeln im Binnenmarkt allein nicht reichen wird, um die Welt für den dringend notwendigen Übergang zu gelebter Nachhaltigkeit auf Kurs zu bringen.

Als global führender Akteur verpflichtet sich die EU, mit gutem Beispiel voranzugehen, und unter anderem Diplomatie, Handels- und Entwicklungskooperation für den Klima- und Umweltschutz zu nutzen sowie Nachhaltigkeitsstandards entlang der Wertschöpfungsketten zu setzen. Diese Absichten sind gut gemeint, und sie bieten Partnerländern sicher vielfache Möglichkeiten, bei der eigenen „grünen Transition” voranzukommen. Aber insbesondere für Entwicklungsländer dürfen potenzielle Herausforderungen und Zielkonflikte nicht übersehen werden.

During the first decade of the 2000s,  Brazil was trending for its economic boom, participatory  innovations  and social  achievements  through public  policies. Brazil  was, back then, a notable example of how advancements on democratic institutions, practices and programs connected to socio-economic progresses of its  population, especiallythe most vulnerable. The book Democracy at Work:  Pathways to  Well-Being in Brazil analyses and  explains the links between more robust democracies and  human  development.

In a time when the world is confronted with the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic, a functioning World Trade Organization (WTO) is more important than ever. The commitments to WTO reform at the Buenos Aires and Osaka G20 summits, however, remain general and do not describe concrete reform paths. In fact, positions of G20 members are far apart on key reform areas. The main focus of the reform debate so far has been on highly politicized issues such as dispute settlement and the role of developing countries in the WTO. In light of the current stalemate concerning these WTO reform issues, we suggest to focus on a number of concrete and promising paths for reform on the negotiation of open plurilateral agreements, regime management and decision-making procedures. We make suggestions for how the G20 can help to improve key functions of the WTO by adopting these often technical and underappreciated reform options.

Multilateral cooperation means that states can collectively achieve more than they can through individual and bilateral efforts alone. Multilateral organisations are important instruments for this: they have a greater geographic and thematic reach, operate at a larger scale and stand for multilateral norms and values. Funding provides an important basis for multilateral development cooperation – only with sufficient core funding at their disposal can multilaterals effectively and independently perform the functions member states expect. This includes a problem-driven allocation of resources, strategic orientation, and flexibility in the implementation of and advocacy for internationally agreed values, norms and standards. The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has demonstrated the need for international cooperation to deal with multiple crises that affect all societies. It has also proved the value of multilateral organisations that can combat the spread of COVID-19 worldwide and support countries where health systems are weakest.
Over the last three decades, the funding trend for multilateral organisations has been towards ever greater shares of earmarked funding, whereas core funding has grown much more slowly or has even declined for some organisations.
A contribution is earmarked when a contributor directs it to a specific pooled fund, programme or – most typically – a project in a specific country. The substantial increase in such earmarked (also “restricted”, “bi-multi”) funding has certainly buoyed organisations and helped to close many funding gaps.
However, such atomised funding practices come with the risk of instrumentalising multilateral organisations for project implementation purposes, and by doing so, reducing their programmatic coherence, effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy. For contributors, earmarking has often been a politically convenient choice. It provides them with control over the use of their resources and visibility for results achieved, all at attractively low implementation costs. However, both the direct implications of earmarking for specific interventions and the more systemic effects on the effectiveness and efficiency of the multilateral organisations tend to be overlooked. At the scale we see it today, earmarking may actually undermine the ability of multilaterals to fulfil the member states’ expectations and make full use of their unique assets to advance the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
To fully harness the potential of multilateral development cooperation, both member states and multilateral organisations have to change course.
• A larger number of contributors – also beyond the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) – should contribute additional funds to the multilateral development system.
• Contributors should reverse the trend of growing shares of earmarked funding by increasing core funds across organisations.
• Contributors should use earmarked funding more prudently to support rather than undermine multilateral functions. Multi-donor pooled funds are a viable alternative.
• Multilaterals should invest in transparent institutional mechanisms that provide checks for resource mobilisation.

In kaum einer anderen Region hat die Covid-19-Pandemie ihre strukturellen Integrationsprobleme in den Welthandel derart offengelegt wie in Afrika. Afrikanische Exporte waren bereits zu Beginn der Corona-Krise von negativen Auswirkungen der Preisturbulenzen auf den internationalen Rohstoffmärkten betroffen. Gleichzeitig führten Handelsbeschränkungen zu erheblichen Importrückgängen bei Grundnahrungsmitteln, Medikamenten oder medizinischer Ausrüstung. Die Afrikanische Entwicklungsbank erwartet, dass die Covid-19-Pandemie einen Wirtschaftseinbruch von 3,4 Prozent in diesem Jahr zur Folge hat. Einen entscheidenden Schlüssel zur Überwindung dieser Krise halten die afrikanischen Länder selbst in der Hand: die Panafrikanische Freihandelszone (AfCFTA). Die EU unter deutscher Ratspräsidentschaft sollte die afrikanische Länder dabei unterstützen.

Bereits im Mai 2019 wurde das Abkommen zur Errichtung der AfCFTA ratifiziert und schuf damit die Grundlage für die weltgrößte Freihandelszone. Die Umsetzung sollte ursprünglich bereits in diesem Sommer beginnen. Sie wurde jedoch aufgrund der Covid-19-Pandemie um ein halbes Jahr – auf den 1. Januar 2021 – verschoben. Die grundsätzliche Bedeutung der Freihandelszone schmälert dies nicht. So soll die AfCFTA den Abbau von Handelsschranken zwischen afrikanischen Ländern beschleunigen, den inner-afrikanischen Handel ankurbeln, regionale Wertschöpfungsketten stärken und Wirtschaftsstrukturen diversifizieren. Mit der AfCFTA wird somit auch die Hoffnung auf eine langfristig bessere Integration Afrikas in den Welthandel verbunden.

Bisher ist das Vorzeigeprojekt Afrikas allerdings noch ein Gerüst, das mit Inhalten gefüllt werden muss. Um den Güterhandel zwischen den afrikanischen Ländern anzuschieben, gilt es, die durch Covid-19 weiter ins Stocken geratenen Verhandlungen über Zollreduktionen zügig abzuschließen. Auch die Ursprungsregeln, also die Bedingungen, unter denen Unternehmen die reduzierten Zölle nutzen können, müssen noch ausverhandelt werden. Um das Potential der AfCFTA voll zu entfalten, werden diese wichtigen ersten Schritte jedoch nicht ausreichen. Untersuchungen der Weltbank und des Internationalen Währungsfonds weisen darauf hin, dass für größere Wohlfahrtseffekte weitergehende Reformen notwendig sind. Zu nennen wären hierbei insbesondere die Vereinheitlichung von nicht-tarifären Handelshemmnissen, wie zum Beispiel bei Hygiene- oder technischen Anforderungen, Maßnahmen zur Vereinfachung, Modernisierung und Harmonisierung von Export- und Importprozessen sowie die Förderung des Dienstleistungs- und Onlinehandels.

Um diese strukturellen Baustellen zu bearbeiten, braucht es vor allem eines: erhebliches politisches Engagement der beteiligten afrikanischen Regierungen für die Umsetzung sowie die übergreifende Vision der AfCFTA. Hierbei ist jedoch zu befürchten, dass die Aus- und Nachwirkungen der Covid-19-Pandemie zu einer – zumindest zeitweisen – Verschiebung von wirtschaftspolitischen Prioritäten führen. Insbesondere kostenintensive Infrastrukturinvestitionen könnten der Pandemiebekämpfung zum Opfer fallen und Rufe nach protektionistischen Maßnahmen lauter werden. Die Verschiebung des Startschusses für die AfCFTA ist damit gleichsam Möglichkeit und Verpflichtung für externe Partner, dieses Abkommens noch stärker zu unterstützen.

Die kontinentale Freihandelszone bietet eine neue Gelegenheit für afrikanische und europäische Akteure, sich zunehmend auf Augenhöhe zu begegnen. Die AfCFTA kann als Plattform für eine neue politische Partnerschaft auf der Grundlage des gegenseitigen Erfahrungsaustauschs über regionale Integration fungieren. Zusätzlich zur Förderung wechselseitiger, wirtschaftlicher Interessen würde eine intensive Kooperation zwischen Afrika und der EU ein starkes Signal für Multilateralismus und globale Zusammenarbeit senden.

Die europäische und deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit sollte die AfCFTA ins Zentrum ihrer handelspolitischen Unterstützung stellen. Sie sollte gezielt die Implementierung und Vertiefung der Freihandelszone voranbringen. Die Unterstützung der EU für die AfCFTA kann jedoch nur dann wirksam sein, wenn sie nicht nur gut koordiniert ist, sondern auch auf die afrikanischen Bedürfnisse und Prioritäten abgestimmt ist. Dies setzt voraus, dass die afrikanischen Staaten sich darauf fokussieren, eine kontinentale Unterstützungs- und Investitionsagenda zu entwickeln und umsetzen, dass die EU-Maßnahmen sich hieran orientieren und die EU keine eigenen Agenden und Interessen durchsetzt. Aus eigener Erfahrung weiß die EU, dass ein Binnenmarkt nicht von heute auf morgen entsteht, und sollte verlässlich und partnerschaftlich gegenüber den afrikanischen Ländern agieren. Die deutsche Ratspräsidentschaft sollte sich für die Schaffung einer gemeinsamen Plattform für eine langfristige und konzertierte Unterstützung der AfCFTA sowie der Förderung weiterer europäischer Investitionen in Afrika einsetzen.

Dieser Text ist Teil einer Sonderreihe unseres Formats Die aktuelle Kolumne, welche die EU-Ratspräsidentschaft entwicklungspolitisch einordnet. Sie finden die weiteren Texte hier auf unserer Überblicksseite.

• Die deutsche EU-Ratspräsidentschaft steht vor einer Herkulesaufgabe

Since 2014, Russian involvement in Africa has grown significantly. African leaders have been receptive to these overtures as a result of increasing concerns about growing Chinese dominance, retrenchment of the United States (US) and their interest in diversifying trading and security partners. Russia cultivates these relationships by relying on the legacy of the Soviet Union’s support for anti-colonial and liberation movements, and focuses on strengthening diplomatic, military and economic collaborations. This analysis shows that:
• Overall, Russia’s strategy in Africa appears to involve a mix of arms sales, political support to authoritarian leaders and security collaborations – in exchange for mining rights, business opportunities and diplomatic support for Russia’s foreign policy preferences. The offers of military assistance and political support, especially for authoritarian leaders, have opened doors to Russian firms and strengthened diplomatic relationships. The support of African allies has been especially important to Russia at the United Nations (UN), where African countries account for a quarter of all votes in the General Assembly.
• Russian trade and investment in Africa has grown significantly, particularly in north Africa. Yet, Russia remains a minor economic player on the continent in comparison to China, India or the US. Russia’s support for smaller states, especially those that have been internationally shunned, gives Moscow significant influence in those countries.
• As of autumn 2019, Russia had concluded military cooperation agreements with 21 African countries and is negotiating the establishment of military bases in a number of states. It is also providing counter-terrorism training. Russia is currently the largest supplier of arms to the continent.
• Russia is increasing efforts to influence elections. Its strategy focuses on shoring up authoritarian strongmen in unstable yet resource-rich states thus bolstering these regimes’ ability to persist. These priorities are in stark contrast to popular opinion on the continent, which favours democracy.
• Russia remains a relatively minor economic and political player on the continent, and European Union (EU) and US concerns that Russian expansion in Africa draws the continent into a broader geopolitical struggle between great powers are overstated.
• Germany and the EU should counter Russian assistance to authoritarian leaders by bolstering support for good governance and civil society strengthening initiatives.

Global narratives underscore that economic growth can often coincide with reductions in poverty and inequality. However, the experiences of several countries over recent decades confirm that inequality can widen or narrow in response to policy choices and independent of economic growth. This paper analyses five country cases, Brazil, Cambodia, Mali, Peru and Tanzania. These countries are the most successful in reducing inequality and poverty while growing robustly for at least a decade since the early 2000 s. The paper assesses how good macroeconomic management, sectoral reform, the strengthening of safety nets, responses to external shocks, and initial conditions all chip away at inequality and support broad growth. Sustained and robust economic growth with strong poverty and inequality reductions are possible across very different contexts and policy choices. The comparative analysis also identifies common building blocks toward success and warns that hard-earned achievements can be easily overturned.

This study examines the negative effects of climate change and how they relate to human mobility in designated countries located in East, West and Southern Africa. It outlines the risks on the livelihood faced by many Africans because of increasingly unpredictable weather events that complicate access to primary necessities while deteriorating health infrastructures and slowing down economic growth. Through the lenses of three major climate change impacts – namely: droughts, water scarcity and rainfall variability – it argues that environmental change risks to increase (forced) migration and the number of trapped populations unable to migrate. It concludes with a set of recommendations on how regional policymakers can best deal with future migration movements.