Search

Begin New Search Topic Reform Political Geography Global Focus

11. Harnessing evidence and learning for people-centred humanitarian action

Author:
Veronique Barbelet, Josie Flint, Emmeline Kerkvliet, and Sara Philips
Publication Date:
12-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
ALNAP: Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance
Abstract:
Reforms have sought to shift the framing of humanitarian action towards a quality and equity agenda focused on the view and experiences of people affected by crisis. Reforms linked to the localisation, accountability to affected people (AAP) and inclusion agendas point to the same general vision – a humanitarian aid architecture and system that enables approaches tailored to context and individuals, including through greater leadership and participation of local actors and communities. This report synthesises the available evidence on existing approaches to people-centred humanitarian action and their outcomes, and it reviews good practices. It identifies key gaps on localisation, AAP and inclusion, explores the inter linkages between them, and reflects on the evidence needed by donors, practitioners and researchers to reform humanitarian practice and policy.
Topic:
Humanitarian Aid, Reform, Accountability, Inclusion, and Localization
Political Geography:
Global Focus

12. Breaking Free: Strategies for Governments on Terminating Investment Treaties and Removing ISDS Provisions

Author:
Ladan Mehranvar and Martin Dietrich Brauch
Publication Date:
10-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Columbia Center on Sustainable Investment
Abstract:
As we enter the second half of 2024, the need for a fundamental transformation of the global investment and policy landscape is indisputable. Only ambitious, truly systemic changes can achieve the Sustainable Development Goals of ending extreme poverty, increasing social inclusion, reducing inequality, promoting the environmental sustainability of food systems, ecosystems, and biodiversity, and urgently shifting towards sustainable energy sources. The transition towards a more sustainable and equitable legal and economic global governance system involves moving away from industries and practices that harm the environment, such as fossil fuel extraction and use, and towards renewable energy sources. It also involves fostering sustainable practices that respect and uphold the rights, needs, and priorities of individuals, local communities, and Indigenous Peoples,1 as well as respecting governments’ sovereign right to regulate in the public interest. Progress, unfortunately, often clashes with a deeply entrenched status quo. One significant obstacle facing international investment law and policymakers is the investment treaty regime, which consists primarily of a network of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), multilateral investment treaties (MITs), and investment chapters in free trade agreements (FTAs). These international investment agreements (IIAs or investment treaties) dictate the treatment of foreign investment and foreign investors by host States. They contain a broad set of substantive provisions safeguarding investors and their investments, along with a powerful investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism that allows foreign investors to seek recourse through international arbitration in order to enforce treaty obligations. Many concerns about IIAs and the ISDS mechanism stem from the extensive substantive and procedural privileges granted to foreign investors. The ISDS mechanism, which is also found in national investment laws and increasingly in investor-State contracts, allows foreign investors to challenge legitimate regulatory measures taken by governments to achieve more equitable economic growth, address the climate crisis, respond to a global pandemic, or otherwise serve the public interest, if those measures negatively impact the investor’s bottom line.
Topic:
Climate Change, Treaties and Agreements, Reform, Multilateralism, and Investment
Political Geography:
Global Focus

13. The international tax agreement of 2021: Why it’s needed, what it does, and what comes next?

Author:
Kimberly Clausing
Publication Date:
04-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
In 2021, more than 135 jurisdictions agreed on transformative new international tax rules that would establish a minimum tax rate of 15 percent on multinational corporate income regardless of where it was reported. In December 2022, the European Union unanimously moved forward to implement this minimum tax, and other countries, including South Korea, Japan, Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom, are also either implementing the tax or taking substantial steps toward implementation. In tandem, the United States should also reform its international tax system and adopt a stronger minimum tax. While the future of the international agreement is uncertain, it has important implications for the ability of governments worldwide to create tax systems that are administrable, fair, and efficient. The agreement also demonstrates important guiding principles for the future of multilateral cooperation on global collective action problems, including efforts to protect public health from future pandemics, address nuclear proliferation, and resolve territorial conflicts. US progress on international tax reform would enhance much needed international cooperation on these issues.
Topic:
Economics, Treaties and Agreements, Reform, European Union, and Tax Systems
Political Geography:
Europe and Global Focus

14. Local Voices, Global Action: Transnational Organizing in Apparel Supply Chains

Author:
Judy Gearhart
Publication Date:
03-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Accountability Research Center (ARC), American University
Abstract:
This working paper discusses transnational organizing in apparel supply chains. It learns from labor rights advocates in the global South who are building social movements, advocating for national reforms, and promoting new forms of accountability in the apparel industry. In particular, the paper examines how the Bangladesh Center for Worker Solidarity (BCWS) and Cambodia’s Center for Alliance of Labor and Human Rights (CENTRAL) have each played a critical role in advancing new agreements and monitoring their implementation. They have increasingly influenced and become leaders in the Clean Clothes Campaign Network. Based on multiple interviews with CENTRAL’s Tola Moeun and BCWS’s Kalpona Akter, the paper traces how they have worked with international allies to expose flaws in supply chain monitoring in the apparel industry. It discusses how they worked with independent trade unions to build grassroots campaigns that often preceded or inspired international campaigns. At the same time as Moeun and Akter came under threat for their national advocacy, they engaged international allies and became experts on trade policy and global supply chains. They are now not only leading proponents of enforceable, multiparty agreements between multinational corporations (MNCs) and independent trade unions, but also advocates for more effective mandatory human rights due diligence laws (MHRDD). Balancing this international advocacy with organizing for national policy reforms is a strategy made all the more necessary by the context of shrinking civic space in Bangladesh and Cambodia. Many companies are seeking to strengthen their human rights due diligence in supplier countries and to engage stakeholders in that process. At this time, the perspectives and experience of BCWS and CENTRAL help identify what is needed to advance more worker-centered approaches. Three sets of lessons emerge about what is needed to sustain transnational supply chain advocacy movements. Firstly, movement-building and trust are vital ingredients in effective supply chain advocacy. Secondly, it is important for human rights due diligence processes to take into account risks to worker rights. Thirdly, strengthening worker voice in global supply chains requires more effective scrutiny and regulation of MNCs.
Topic:
Reform, Accountability, Industry, Labor Rights, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
Global Focus

15. Managing Opportunities, Challenges, and Expectations for the New Agenda for Peace

Author:
Eugene Chen, Sarah Cliffe, Daniel Friedman, Bojan Francuz, Céline Monnier, and Margaret Williams
Publication Date:
05-2023
Content Type:
Commentary and Analysis
Institution:
Center on International Cooperation (CIC)
Abstract:
Amongst the many elements proposed in the secretary-general’s 2021 report Our Common Agenda was the call for a New Agenda for Peace because “the world is moving closer to the brink of instability, where the risks we face are no longer managed effectively through the systems we have.” The United Nations (UN) system was invited to develop a New Agenda for Peace as part of the preparations of the Summit of the Future, and the New Agenda will be the subject of one of 11 policy briefs to be issued in advance of the September 2023 preparatory ministerial meeting for the Summit of the Future. The forthcoming Secretariat policy brief will be informed by consultations with member states and other stakeholders. However, as the Pact for the Future will ultimately be a member state document, the issuance of the Secretariat policy brief will mark the initiation—not the culmination—of the intergovernmental deliberations on what will be included in the New Agenda for Peace to be agreed by member states during the Summit of the Future in September 2024. This piece provides a historical glance at past UN reforms, identifies the primary challenges and opportunities the UN and its member states face as they undergo this process, and looks forward to the key priorities that can be taken up from a realistic and practical perspective. Highlighted is how the New Agenda for Peace “provides a rare opportunity for the United Nations to examine and reflect upon the totality of the peace and security work of the Organization to uncover and better understand the synergies and contradictions of the existing processes and structures.”
Topic:
International Cooperation, United Nations, Reform, Peace, and Instability
Political Geography:
Global Focus

16. HIV, Hepatitis & Drug Policy Reform

Author:
Global Commission On Drug Policy
Publication Date:
12-2023
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Global Commission On Drug Policy
Abstract:
This report, “HIV, Hepatitis & Drug Policy Reform” follows the Global Commission’s thematic reports on “The War on Drugs and HIV/AIDS” (2012) and “The Negative Impact of the War on Drugs on Public Health: The Hidden Hepatitis C Epidemic” (2013). Despite a decade-old call for urgent action, current drug control efforts fail, with HIV and hepatitis prevalence persisting among drug users. In 2023, approximately 354 million people around the world are currently living with hepatitis B or C. People who use drugs, especially people who inject drugs, are at a higher risk for blood- borne HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C. Although there has been some success — for example, the scale-up of antiretroviral treatments that reduced HIV related deaths to their lowest in almost three decades — progress has been uneven and people who use drugs are still left behind. This must change. Prohibition and criminalization of drug use hinder HIV and hepatitis prevention, escalating risks and obstructing treatment. People who use drugs face disproportionate incarceration, abusive policing, and stigma. Inadequate resources are dedicated to proven harm reduction options while billions are spent on punitive law enforcement measures. Achievable UN targets for ending these epidemics by 2030 exist, but a crucial course correction demands political will to embrace a new approach to drugs. The time to act is now.
Topic:
HIV/AIDS, Reform, Drugs, Public Health, and Hepatitis
Political Geography:
Global Focus

17. The Role of Social Protection in Environmental Fiscal Reforms

Author:
Daniele Malerba
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Socio-ecological transitions need to address the pressing challenges of our time, namely climate change mitigation and social development – including poverty and inequality reduction – in a complementary manner. The importance of achieving resilient and sustainable societies has been made more evident by recent shocks such as the Covid-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine. As a consequence, national and international development policies need to foster links between social and environmental goals and policies. One way to achieve such synergies is through environmental fiscal reforms, defined as the combination of carbon-pricing mechanisms and consequent revenue spending for environmental and socio-economic goals. Even though carbon pricing is just one of the instruments needed to achieve climate goals, it provides the complementary benefit of expanding revenues while incentivising a reduction in emissions though market signals. This paper discusses environmental fiscal reforms from the perspective of low- and middle-income countries and development cooperation, with a focus on how to improve the social outcomes of such reforms. While revenues can be recycled for different purposes – including compensating industries with high adaptation costs, further investments in environmental projects and research, and use for the general budget – the paper focusses on social spending. The revenue can be used to decrease poverty and inequality levels and to compensate the poorest for increases in prices by utilising social protection mechanisms. This is particularly important to garner broad societal support and to make environmental fiscal reforms and carbon pricing more socially acceptable and implementable at sufficient levels in more countries. The paper first presents the key features of different carbon-pricing policies and the revenues they can generate, especially for low- and middle-income countries that have limited fiscal space. It then shows how the revenue can be used to fund social protection mechanisms that can compensate the poorest and address distributional concerns. It underlines the gaps and limitations of current social protection programmes, especially in terms of low coverage of vulnerable populations. This also constrained the response to the war in Ukraine, as lower-income countries had to use price stabilisation mechanisms – which ultimately generated negative fiscal and environmental effects – to avoid inflicting greater burdens on the poor instead of providing targeted programmes. The paper also offers some design principles to best address distributional concerns, including sequencing and sectoral coverage. It then discusses the role that development cooperation can have in implementing environmental fiscal reforms in low- and middle-income countries. Overall, the paper suggests that environmental fiscal reforms can be used to achieve resilient societies and accelerate the fight against climate change, with the goal of building a more inclusive and sustainable future. Such reforms should become a priority of German development cooperation and a key lever for its strategic goals, instead of occupying a peripheral role, as it currently does. Most importantly, the analysis strongly underlines the case for environmental fiscal reforms rather than the current use of subsidies and price controls; this is true when considering both climate goals (as keeping prices low does not incentivise shifts in production and consumption) as well as social goals (e.g. cash transfers result in significantly greater levels of poverty and inequality reduction when compared to untargeted subsidies). Therefore, social protection investments are urgently needed, also in lower-income countries. The current energy crisis due to the war in Ukraine and the Covid-19 pandemic has made this clearer.
Topic:
Climate Change, Development, Environment, Reform, and Protection
Political Geography:
Global Focus

18. Development Finance at a Turning Point: Effects and Policy Recommendations

Author:
Kathrin Berensmann, Sabine Laudage Teles, Christoph Sommer, and Yabibal M. Walle
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
Development finance is at a turning point, as the macroeconomic environment has changed profoundly and the financing gap for low- and middle-income countries has widened. The events that led to this new situation are the multiple crises that the global economy is facing, such as the climate crisis, the COVID-19 crisis and the war in Ukraine. As a result, interest rates have risen sharply over the past year and are not expected to decline anytime soon. High interest rates further restrict low- and middle-income countries’ access to international financial markets by making borrowing more expensive. At the same time, debt levels in several countries are rising to levels that are almost impossible to repay. Poorer countries find themselves in a trap where financing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) becomes a distant goal for them. To “get back on track” in financing the 2030 Agenda and the SDGs, a number of reform proposals have been put forward within several processes and initiatives, including the Financing for Development (FfD) process, the Bridgetown Initiative and the Macron-led Paris Summit. Despite being initiated by different actors, these proposals all highlight the importance of reforming the international financial architecture in view of the changed macroeconomic environment. The Hamburg Sustainability Conference in June 2024, the United Nation’s Summit of the Future in 2024 and the next FfD Conference in 2025 should be used to strengthen and accelerate ongoing reform processes and come up with new, innovative and bold proposals to reshape development finance in these challenging times. Against the background of the multiple crises and its effects, our key recommendations for the reform of development finance are as follows.
Topic:
Debt, Development, Reform, Finance, Sustainable Development Goals, and Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs)
Political Geography:
Germany and Global Focus

19. Implementation of the WTO Investment Facilitation for Development Agreement: Identification of Reform Needs and Development Policy Measures

Author:
Axel Berger, Ann Margret Bolmer, Florian Gitt, Zoryana Olekseyuk, and Marius Metz
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
More than 110 Members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), many of them developing countries and least-developed countries (LDCs), are negotiating a plurilateral Agreement on Investment Facilitation for Development (IFD). In contract to existing bilateral investment treaties that establish sweeping rules on investment protection and liberalisation, the IFD Agreement aims at increasing the transparency, predictability and efficiency of investment frameworks as well as improving inter-governmental coordination and international cooperation on investment matters. In view of the fact that WTO Members aim at concluding the negotiations by mid-2023, discussions are under way on how the IFD Agreement can successfully be implemented in developing countries, and LDCs in particular. The IFD Agreement includes a comprehensive section on Special and Differential Treatment, which grants developing countries and LDCs longer timeframes as well as technical assistance and capacity development to support implementation. The Agreement also foresees so-called needs assessments at the country level to evaluate countries’ readiness and support needs to implement the IFD Agreement. While such needs assessments have been extensively used in the context of the WTO Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA), we lack insights into how such needs assessments can be operationalised in the context of investment facilitation and what kind of imple¬mentation challenges are prevalent, in particular in LDCs. To assess implementation gaps, barriers to successful implementation as well as national and international support actions, we conducted pilot needs assessments covering a selected group of IFD Agreement measures with a broad range of stakeholders in three LDCs, namely Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR), Togo and Zambia. Our pilots indicate that 13 selected provisions of the IFD Agreement have not been sufficiently implemented across the three LDCs. In particular, 64 per cent of analysed provisions have only partially been implement, while the rest have not been implemented at all. These findings underline that, in order to benefit from the IFD Agreement, LDCs need substantial implementation support from the international community. The most striking, commonly identified barriers hindering the full implementation are lack of cooperation and coordination among investment-competent agencies, poor information management for investors as well as limited digitalisation and automatisation. To overcome these barriers, nationally identified actions may focus mainly on the creation of a single information portal for foreign investors and a single-window system to improve authorisation procedures, as well as a clarification of mandates and functions of relevant ministries and institutions. Our research also underlines the importance of a whole-of-government and multi-stakeholder approach. The establishment of a National Investment Facilitation Committee may prove to be an effective instrument to ensure coordination and communication between involved stakeholders. International support should complement national actions with technical assistance and capacity development in investment-related topics, improving information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructures and digitalised processes, as well as fostering the international exchange of best practices. Our pilot needs assessments emphasise that the WTO Secretariat and the negotiating Members should strengthen outreach activities to promote knowledge about the WTO IFD Agreement among national-level stakeholders. In general, our pilots underline that needs assessments are an important instrument for identifying persistent implementation gaps and tailoring technical assistance and capacity development to the demands of Members, especially LDCs.
Topic:
Development, Reform, Investment, WTO, and Development Policy
Political Geography:
Global Focus

20. The Future of Climate and Development Finance: Balancing Separate Accounting with Integrated Policy Responses

Author:
Svea Koch and Mariya Aleksandrova
Publication Date:
01-2023
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS)
Abstract:
With the first Global Stocktake to be presented at the 28th Conference of the Parties (COP28) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Dubai, the question of inadequate levels of climate finance for developing countries will again take centre stage. Ongoing efforts to reform climate finance include the negotiation of a New Collective Quantified Goal (NCQG) by the end of 2024; the structural reform of Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) to provide more climate finance and to lower the cost of capital; and the setting-up and integration of the new funding stream for loss and damage. Yet, there are other longstanding issues in international climate finance that likewise need to be addressed as part of these ongoing efforts, which are mainly related to the disentanglement of the development and climate finance regimes. Official Development Assistance (ODA), per definition, aims to promote the economic development and welfare of developing countries, and at the same time plays an increasing role in the global climate finance landscape. However, sourcing climate finance from ODA is already leading to a “crowding out” of limited ODA resources for its original purposes. Moreover, the current system of reporting on and accounting for climate finance provided through ODA has significant pitfalls and weaknesses. This paper discusses some of the key challenges caused by the blurring of the development assistance and climate finance regimes and argues that the NCQG process and the integration of loss and damage into the climate finance system must go hand in hand with a separation of climate and development finance accounting mechanisms whilst ensuring integrated policy responses. We address these issues in two parts: first we focus on the current system of reporting and accounting for international climate finance (as ODA); and second on the role of ODA to finance mitigation, adaptation, and loss and damage. We argue that there is a political necessity for distinguishing between ODA and climate finance (for transparency and credibility), which contrasts with the operational reality where co-benefits of projects and development finance must be achieved by integrating climate and non-climate objectives. In this regard, the paper analyses the implications of on-going negotiations under the UNFCCC around the NCQG and loss and damage for a necessary ODA reform. In particular, we make the following recommendations: (1) Align the accounting and reporting system of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) with the NCQG: one should separate climate and development finance; reduce over-reporting; and establish triangulation of climate finance data reported by donors. (2) Introduce qualitative frameworks for monitoring and assessment of the impact of climate-related interventions; and define “fit-for-purpose” instru-ments and channels for the provision of climate finance. Looking ahead, we expect discussions on a potential enlargement of the contributor base of climate finance to give new impetus to climate finance reform.
Topic:
Reform, Climate Finance, Transparency, Development Policy, and Development Finance
Political Geography:
Global Focus