Suchergebnisse

Environmental governance can be understood as 'the establishment, the reaffirmation or change of institutions (policies, laws, procedures, practices and organisations) to resolve conflicts - overt or latent - between actors over environmental resources. Environmental governance takes place at many levels of society through statutory as well as through customary institutions and with the involvement of a wide range of actors. As societies change and new economic actors as well as new ways of using natural resources develop, the need for the establishment of a statutory framework for environmental governance is accentuated. In 1987, when the Brundtland Commission's report Our Common Future was published, only nine out of 103 developing countries counted on national environmental legislation. In 2008, this number had grown to 86. In addition, also a framework for international environmental governance has been developed. This report provides an overview of these achievements and examines the extent to which development cooperation has contributed. Moreover, based on case studies from Kenya, Nicaragua, Niger and Vietnam, the report summarises the challenges ahead for environmental governance and development cooperation.

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDG's) represent the most ambitious global development agenda in history. Achieving them will require financing far beyond traditional aid, especially at a time where established donors are cutting or diverting aid budgets to meet refugee and security issues. Alternative sources of development financing seem ever more critical, such as the private sector, private foundations and the BRICS. But what are in fact the interests and modes of operation of these actors, and to what extent do they align with the aims of the SDGs? And how do national governments of developing countries themselves perceive and approach these new sources of financing? In this new report, six DIIS researchers examine the policies, mind-sets and interests of some of the many actors that will be playing a fundamental role in the complex and challenging task of financing sustainable development in the years to come.

In the fall of 2015, world leaders adopted the most ambitious global development agenda in history. Meeting the aspiring targets of the Sustainable Development Goals will require financing far beyond traditional aid. At the same time, aid itself is under major pressure as European governments cut aid budgets or divert them to meet refugee and migration issues. In this context of massive global ambition and concurrent uncertainty on the future of aid, other actors and sources of development financing seem ever more critical, such as the private sector, private foundations and the BRICS. But what are in fact the interests and modes of operation of such actors in the context of development financing, and to what extent do they align with the aims of the SDGs? And how do national governments of developing countries themselves perceive and approach these new sources of financing? ; In the fall of 2015, world leaders adopted the most ambitious global development agenda in history. Meeting the aspiring targets of the Sustainable Development Goals will require financing far beyond traditional aid. At the same time, aid itself is under major pressure as European governments cut aid budgets or divert them to meet refugee and migration issues. In this context of massive global ambition and concurrent uncertainty on the future of aid, other actors and sources of development financing seem ever more critical, such as the private sector, private foundations and the BRICS. But what are in fact the interests and modes of operation of such actors in the context of development financing, and to what extent do they align with the aims of the SDGs? And how do national governments of developing countries themselves perceive and approach these new sources of financing?

• Climate finance coordination challenges reflect political differences, including divergent interests among ministries involved in the governance of multilateral climate funds.• Differences in the histories and governance of the Climate Investment Funds (CIF) and Green Climate Fund (GCF) – two key multilateral climate funds – shape debate on their respective advantages and future roles.• The multilateral funds have encouraged cross-governmental coordination at country level. However, there are competing views on which governmental actors at national level are best-suited to take responsibility for coordinating climate finance planning and implementation.• The cross-sectoral orientation of climate finance coordination contrasts with existing development coordination approaches, which emphasize coordination within separate policy sectors.

This report compares and contrasts how disaster risk management is being conceptualised in relation to emerging climate change adaptation efforts and how these two agendas are influenced by different governance systems, accountabilities and social contracts in Zambia, Uganda, Viet Nam and Nepal. Particular attention is paid to how this relates to different forms of state legitimacy and the changing role of local government in connection with a range of decentralisation processes, increasing political attention and the lure of new but little understood climate change funding. Findings highlight how concerns about disaster risk are influencing how new and uncertain forms of combined disaster/climate governance are perceived and implemented. Increasing attention from the media is also noted as a key factor determining which aspects of disaster risk management gain prominence, and which are ignored in public demands and in responses by politicians and local government.

The Paris climate agreement established a new framework for global climate governance that is firmly anchored in national plans and commitments. But who is actually going to take the next steps to implement these plans on the ground and what are the incentives and obstacles they face in moving from words to action? Many have pointed to the important role of local governments and other sub-national institutions, not least in developing countries where the task of adapting to climate change is considerable. Yet little is known about the way such sub-national institutions are responding to climate change, and how they interact with the central state and local communities in practice. This report brings together key findings from a collaborative research programme on the politics, actors and emerging agendas within sub-national climate governance in Africa and Asia. Drawing on research in Nepal, Uganda, Vietnam and Zambia, the reports discusses four key themes in climate change adaptation practice, namely: how the global climate change agenda is downscaled in national and sub-national processes, the frequent disconnect between national climate change policies and sub-national practices, how climate change may be shifting the basis for social contracts and state legitimacy, how climate change is emerging as an arena for struggles over authority and resources