Study for the European Parliament: “Monitoring the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals – The role of the data revolution”, by Neil WEBSTER and Helle Munk RAVNBORG

TEPSA+DEVE
DEVE SDGTEPSA has recently coordinated a study for the European Parliament’s Committee on Development (DEVE), authored by Neil WEBSTER and Helle Munk RAVNBORG, Senior Researchers at the Danish Institute for International Studies (DIIS).

The study deals with “Monitoring the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals – The role of the data revolution” and examines the transition from monitoring the Millennium Development Goals to monitoring the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the implications for developing countries, and the support that the data revolution could provide. The indicators agreed for the SDG targets are discussed in terms of data requirements and the different types of data currently collected. The potential for the data revolution to strengthen open data and access to data in terms of connectivity is also explored. The latter is seen as being central to increasing accountability as part of the monitoring process. The authors looked into the areas that the EU might prioritise and how these could contribute to the broader Follow-Up and Review framework proposed by the UN Secretary General for consideration of the UN General Assembly, and offered recommendations for EU support to its development partner countries.

According to the paper, the European Parliament should organise an annual regional review of (i) progress towards the SDGs within the EU, and (ii) the effects of the EU on the progress of developing countries with a specific focus on the need for policy coherence across the full range of EU policies and their implementation with respect to these countries. For its part, the Committee on Development could contribute with specific contributions to the broader EU review process; namely (i) the progress reported by developing countries that are partners to the EU and/or its member governments, (ii) the estimated impact of EU contributions with particular focus on the six fields of EU comparative advantage identified above, (iii) the Committee on Development’s own assessment of the state of policy coherence for development, and (iv) an assessment as to the country and regional focus of the EU’s support for development in the light of progress towards the SDG reported. For each of these four contributions, a clear set of suggestions would be presented to the European Parliament based on the existing and emerging challenges identified within each. In addition to its contributions to the annual regional review, the Committee on Development would organise an annual briefing on developing countries’ progress generally and the contribution made by the EU to this progress.

The full study can be downloaded here.

European Parliament workshop on “Afghanistan – Challenges and perspectives until 2020”

TEPSA+DEVE

TEPSA coordinated the participation of Dr Mona Kanwal Sheikh (Danish Institute for International Studies) and Dr Arne Strand (Norwegian Centre for Humanitarian Studies ) in a European Parliament workshop on “Afghanistan – Challenges and perspectives until 2020”. The workshop was hosted by the European Parliament’s Committee on Foreign Affairs (AFET), the Committee on Development (DEVE) and the Delegation for relations with Afghanistan and took place on 17 November 2016 at the premises of the European Parliament in Brussels. Three thematic panels focused on the future political, security and development challenges and potential solutions that will mark the EU-Afghanistan relations up to 2020. A publication containing the workshop report as well as the experts’ briefings will soon be available on the TEPSA website.

The official invitation of the European Parliament to the workshop can be found here.

TEPSA Report “The 2014 EP Election Campaign in the Member States: National Debates, European Elections” by Mirte van den Berge

tepsa“This time it will be different” was the slogan of the information campaign for the 2014 European Parliament elections of the European Parliament (EP) itself. While the EP has been directly elected since 1979, its elections are traditionally regarded as second-order elections. The 2014 elections were expected to challenge this fact, marking a shift in the (perceived) importance of the European Union as a whole and the European Parliament in particular. The framework of TEPSA, as a network of 33 think tanks and research institutes focused on EU integration in the EU member states, provides an excellent opportunity to analyse information on the EP election campaign in the member states. The report focuses on the nature of the electoral campaign; the topics discussed; the relevance of any alliance to party groups in the European Parliament in the national debates; and the role the European “Spitzenkandidaten” (the candidates nominated by the pan-European political parties for the post of Commission President) played in the election campaigns in the member states. This paper can be considered an early attempt to explore whether or not the 2014 election campaigns have been substantially ‘different’ compared to before. Read more.

TEPSA and IAI won a EP’s tender on “Space, Sovereignty and European Security: Building European capabilities in an advanced institutional framework”!

TEPSA_LOGOHaving won the tender, on 21 March 2013 TEPSA signed a contract with the European Parliament on the external study and workshLogo IAIop on “Space, Sovereignty and European Security: Building European capabilities in an advanced institutional framework. The study will be delievered by an excellent team of experienced researchers from the Instituto Affari Internazionali (IAI): Stefano Silvestri, Vincenzo Camporini, Michele Nones, Jean-Pierre Darnis, Anna Clementina Veclani and Nicolo Sartori. The study will be published in summer 2013 and available on TEPSA website.

ep logo

Challenges of multi-tier governance in the EU

On Thursday October 4th 2012, the Constitutional Affairs Committee of the European Parliament organised a workshop on Challenges of multi-tier governance in the EU. The Constitutional Affairs Committee had invited several experts to discuss the topic in four panels: 1) Flexibility and differentiated integration under Lisbon treaty: What is the impact of the differentiated integration on the functioning of the EU?; 2) European and national institutions in multi-tier governance: What are the roles and tasks for the EU institutions and national institutions?; 3) Legitimacy and accountability of the multi-tier governance: Does multi-tier governance challenge the EU legitimacy and its accountability to the citizens?; 4) Multi-tier governance beyond existing mechanisms: Are new competencies, powers and constitutional mechanism needed?

Several researchers from the TEPSA network were invited, including Jean-Victor Louis, Honorary Member of the TEPSA Board, on “Institutional dilemmas of the Economic and Monetary Union”; Renaud Dehousse, Director of the Centre d’études européennes of Sciences Po – TEPSA’s French member institute, on “Inter-institutional balance in the EU: is the community method still relevant?”; Wolfgang Wessels, Chairperson of the TEPSA Board, on “How to assess an institutional architecture for a multi-level Parliamentarism in differentiated integration?”; and Iain Begg, Member of the TEPSA Board, on “Budgetary solidarity in multi-tiered Union?”.

The programme as well as the outlines of the participants ‘ presentations are available.

European Parliament workshop report on the Responsibility to Protect, March 2012

Cover website Responsiblity to ProtectBy Marlene Gottwald

Since its endorsement in the UN World Summit Outcome Document in 2005, the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P) principle remains rather weakly defined in international law. However it has made some political and institutional progress within the United Nations (UN) system. Most recently, it has been applied in practice with regards to the military operation in Libya.

 

European Parliament’s Briefing on consolidating the EU’s Crisis Management Structures: Civil-Military Coordination and the Future of the EU OHQ, May 2010

The performed move from ESDP to CSDP in the Lisbon Treaty is desirable for an increase of coherence in EU’s external action, including its crisis management efforts. The coherence is further reinforced by its institutional innovations, namely the double-hatted High Commissioner and the European External Action Service which is uniquely positioned to play the role of a principal agency in the field of crisis management. EU’s use of the concept of crisis management is underdeveloped and overused simultaneously. Several key trends in this field are discerned and they all indicate that the EU has been moving in the direction towards more complex and hybrid operations for which comprehensive planning and conduct strategies need to be used. The need for more intensive intra-EU coordination as well as external cooperation of the EU with other actors involved in crisis management is recognised.

Author: Nik Hynek, Institute of International Relations (IIR)

Past events at Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) – Spring 2014

IAI

A public stakeholders event within the framework of the project New Pact for Europe was organised on 10 March 2014. Within this project, public panel debates have been organized with a broad range of stakeholders in 15 Member States: representatives from civil society, business community, employers’ and trade unions, think tanks and media, policy makers from national, regional and local level. Members of the Reflection Group have participated in these debates that will feed into the reflection. The event in Italy was organised by the Istituto Affari Internazionali (IAI) of Rome in collaboration with Centro Studi sul Federalismo (CSF) of Turin. Please click here to download the conference programme, conference report, first report of the project.

TEPSA Pre-Presidency Conference: Priorities and Challenges of the Italian Presidency 2014

Growth, employment and immigration are at the top  of the agenda of Italy’s EU presidency. IAI with TEPSA have prepared a background paper assessing these and other challenges and presented a series of recommendations to the Italian foreign ministry, 24-25 March 2014, Rome.

Conference series of “The future of the European economy” on: “Quadrare il cerchio nell’Eurozona. Riforme, stabilità finanziaria e sostenibilità fiscale”

With Marco Buti, Director-General for Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), 26 March 2014. A meeting to talk about Italy and the European Union, economic balance and banking union. The debate has been inspired from the data and information contained in the report of the European Commission on the EU’s economic imbalances, published on March 5. Please click here to download the report, the photos and the interview.

Workshop on “L’Europa e le politiche di migrazione”

Organized by the Representation of the European Commission in Italy within the framework of the project Politically.EU, 31 March 2014, Naples. The deliberation workshop which took place in Naples among national stakeholders has emphasized the need for the EU to adopt an innovative political and cultural approach about immigration, with a prompt change of perspective and with a net reversal of points of view. The programme and the report are available for download.

Presentation of the study “Space, sovereignty and European security. Building European capabilities in an advanced institutional framework” to the Subcommittee on Security and Defence of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, 1 April 2014, Brussels

A new IAI monograph commissioned by the European Parliament’s Subcommittee on Security and Defence offers an analysis of the role of space-based capabilities in supporting the security and defence policies of the EU and its Member States. Please find the monograph here.
Conference on “Energy and Environmental Policies in Post-Crisis Europe”, within the framework of the project “Towards a More United and Effective Europe: Beyond the 2014 European Parliament Elections”, 9 April 2014, Athens. Please find the programme and information on the project here.

Conference on “Turkey and Europe: a multifaceted relationship migration, citizenship and civil society”

Within the framework of the project “Global Turkey in Europe”, in cooperation with German Marshall Fund of the United States, Istanbul Policy Center and Mercator Foundation, 14 April 2014, Berlin. Please find the programme here.

Round table on “L’Italia guarda a Strasburgo: Il Parlamento europeo e il dibattito politico italiano”

In cooperation with Centro Studi sul Federalismo, in the framework of the project “EP votes that shaped EU and national politics 2009-2014”, 14 April 2014, Turin. Please find the programme, the IAI-CSF report and the project.

Editorial TEPSA Newsletter February 2014: “European Union Cooperation: The Art of Explaining”, by Jaap de Zwaan, TEPSA Secretary General

5133718252_5efaeb86d5_zThe upcoming elections of May for the European Parliament are a test case for the public support and, in a way, the credibility of the EU cooperation.

In many member states euro scepticism is gaining importance. Furthermore, in all member states the support for European cooperation has been affected negatively by the economic crisis.

People are already concerned that an important number of euro-sceptics will win a seat in the European Parliament. Apart from that, the risk of a low turnout does exist, as evidenced in earlier elections.

Obviously, a discussion about the ins and outs of European cooperation is a good thing. However, such a discussion should be organised in a balanced and nuanced manner. In debates of euro-sceptics one often hears only shouting, one-liners and slogans. Nonetheless, it is the full story that should be told and explained.

So far, from the side of national governments there is hardly any input to this debate. Yet, an adequate response is desperately needed.

In order to tell the whole story it seems that three things are important:

1. To demonstrate the necessity and importance of international cooperation,

2. To explain the adequacy of the EU framework for that purpose and, connected to that,

3. To explain the originality of the decision-making procedures.

As to the need for international cooperation one merely has to refer to the global threats and challenges of today’s world, such as the economic crisis; asylum and immigration; environmental protection, climate change and energy; scarcity problems with regard to water and food; combat of poverty; and combat of terrorism. All issues mentioned are, one way or the other, related to our security. Moreover, because all of them have an international character, it is obvious that individual countries are not able any more to cope with these matters on their own. On the contrary, the need for international cooperation is clearly indicated.

In Europe we have an appropriate framework for cooperation between states at our disposal: the European Union with its institutions and legal instruments. Indeed, different from other international organisations where essentially decisions having a political character are produced, it is in the framework of the EU -a community of law- that policies can be truly developed.

Then, when one analyses the essentials of the decision-making procedures of the EU it becomes apparent that member states are in fact fully in control. Because, they -as ‘Herren der Verträge’- are the ones who negotiate and conclude the basic texts, the treaties. They are also the ones who -in the European Council, the framework of member states’ representatives at the highest political level- establish the general political guidelines including the policy priorities of the EU as well as the timetable for their completion.

It is only within the framework thus established by the member states themselves that the so-called supranational procedures are of application: the exclusive right of the Commission, (qualified) majority voting in the Council, and co-legislative competences for the European Parliament. Last but not least, the Court of Justice controls the legality of the acts of the institutions.

All these elements have their justification. The Commission operates in the general interest of the European Union and not with national interests in mind -which is the natural attitude of member states. Majority voting does contribute to the efficiency of the cooperation. The European Parliament is directly elected and their co-legislative (and co-budgetary) powers illustrate the democratic character of the process. Finally, the presence of an independent judiciary underlines the rule of law nature of the EU cooperation.

All in all, it is not difficult to argue that the EU decision-making process on an overall basis is a democratic one.

That being said, if there is a problem with regard to the popularity of the European Union -and there certainly is one- the problem is not so much related to the democratic character of the decision-making process but has to do with the legitimacy and the credibility of the process. Indeed, citizens are not aware of these elements or do not understand their exact meaning, and politicians do not explain them. Often one may even wonder whether politicians themselves do understand the process fully.

Be that as it may, the ‘distance’ between the citizen and the EU has become a serious and urgent problem and has to be overcome.

Of course, in order to solve these problems there rests a responsibility with the EU institutions, members of the European Parliament in the first place, the media and, certainly also, the citizen him or herself. Indeed, for ordinary people it is not difficult to be informed about all topical developments. One only has to consult the multitude of news sites available.

However, above all, the first to be held responsible in this process are national politicians: the members of national governments and parliaments. Members of national governments should present themselves as a dimension of an international layer of governance and have to explain the achievements of the Brussels’ discussions. They must provide information on how the process works and should not blame Brussels in case they have not been able to push their national points of view fully through. Members of national parliaments have to recognise that their European agenda gradually has become as so important, not to say more important, compared to the national one.

So, Brussels is us and we are Brussels!

The conclusion to be drawn from this is that in order to cope with the global challenges of today the EU framework is a suitable one. With regard to the objectives and the direction of the cooperation, the member states are the ones playing a determining role in the EU integration process. The supranational procedures are the instruments, nothing more and nothing less, allowing the European Union to implement the objectives set out by the member states themselves. Moreover, supranational decision-making serves the democratic character, the efficiency and the effectiveness of the overall process.

This has to be explained to the citizen. It is the primary role for the member states to do so.

Therefore, from a point of view of substance, citizens have all interest to cast their vote in elections to the European Parliament.

Politicians in their turn have to start working to explain the relevance of EU cooperation. They have to hurry up, the deadline until the end of May is short.

There is no time to lose!

Jaap W. de Zwaan

Secretary-General of TEPSA

Picture: © unitedexplanations

Editorial TEPSA Newsletter November 2014: “European Parliament and National Parliaments: partners or competitors?”, by Prof. Jaap de Zwaan, TEPSA Secretary General

images52J3E3P3It is clear that the primary responsibility with respect to the representation of citizens’ interests in the EU decision making process lies with the European Parliament. Indeed, the EP is directly elected, acts as co-legislator in the legislative process of the EU and possesses full-fledged budgetary powers. On the contrary, national parliaments are first and for all responsible to control the activities of their national ministers in the Council.

During recent years, however, the role of national parliaments in EU policy making has been strengthened. Notably the Lisbon Treaty has given a strong impetus in this respect. In Article 12 TEU, the different contributions of national parliaments to EU policy making are listed. Furthermore the First Protocol annexed to the Lisbon Treaty deals with information to be provided to national parliaments regarding recent policy developments, as well as with COSAC, the forum for interparliamentary cooperation within the Union. The Second Protocol describes the role of national parliaments in the process of application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (the so-called ‘yellow’ and ‘red’ card procedure).

In this way the EP and national parliaments have their own, but strictly separate, responsibilities with regard to the further development of the integration process.

Now, both parliamentary branches would be wise to realize that, as directly elected instances, they both do represent the interests of the same citizens. These are common interests which they have to serve, each from their own perspective. In this process both levels, the national and the European one, should try to develop a, as much as possible, coherent approach.

The legitimacy of the EU decision making process for example would be well served if both parliamentary branches start to cooperate in a more structural and intensive way compared to what is happening today. So national parliaments could invite committees of the EP to come over to their member states in order to discuss -in the national parliament concerned- day to day business in the policy field in question. National parliaments also could organize periodically public hearings or debates in their member states about topical issues for which they invite, apart from relevant stakeholders and the media, individual members of the EP. Similar initiatives could be taken with regard to political groups of the EP respectively individual members of those groups.

Similar initiatives of course can be taken by the European Parliament with regard to their national counterparts. However, in view of the fact that the EP is the natural and fully competent participant in the EU decision making process, initiatives should originate in the first instance from national parliaments.

Equally national parliaments should position themselves -in contacts with their constituencies and electorate- much more than happens today as part of an international layer of government, in this case, the European Union. Because, indeed, national parliaments are on a daily basis engaged with legislation and other policy issues having a European background. What is urgently needed here is more ‘outreach’ to the ordinary citizen.

One of the major -and structural- problems the European Union is confronted with these days, concerns the ‘distance’ between the citizen and the European Union as well as the transparency and legitimacy of the EU decision making process. By cooperating more closely, the European Parliament and national parliaments should be able to bridge that gap, at least partially.

Photo source: presstv.ir

Editorial TEPSA Newsletter April 2014: “Democracy in the European Union: The importance of the European elections”, by Prof. Jaap de Zwaan, TEPSA Secretary General

All along the existence of the European Union -and its predecessor organisations- the question has been raised whether the EU decision making suffers from a democratic deficit. In fact without a lot of debate this question was always answered in the affirmative.

These days there are good reasons to argue that the decision making process at the European level is a democratic one.

Up to the eighties of the last century the European Parliament was referred to as an ‘assembly’, not as a parliament. In that period the parliament essentially possessed the right to deliver opinions in a certain number of policy areas. Since the end of the seventies, however, developments have gone fast. In 1979 the first direct election of the European Parliament members took place. The European Single Act (entry into force in 1987) introduced the cooperation procedure. The Maastricht Treaty (1993) improved the working of the cooperation procedure and added the co-decision procedure. The Amsterdam Treaty (1999) (abolished the cooperation procedure and) transformed the co-decision procedure into a properly speaking co-legislative instrument: without agreement between Council and European Parliament a decision cannot be adopted.

Finally but not least, the Lisbon Treaty (2009) widened the scope of application of the co-decision procedure and reinforced the competences of the parliament in the external domain (the competence to give consent). Furthermore, the treaty introduced the institutional innovation according to which the European Council, when proposing a candidate for President of the Commission, has to take into account the elections to the European Parliament. The candidate is then elected by the European Parliament. The Lisbon Treaty also produced two protocols on the role of national parliaments, one of which concerned the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality.

Even if one takes into account the innovations brought by the Lisbon Treaty, still certain issues have to be settled regarding the working of the European Parliament. The first issue concerns the objection that, in the absence of a European ‘demos’, the parliament cannot pretend to represent the European citizens. Secondly there is the argument that the scope of the co-decision procedure –referred to in the treaties as the ‘ordinary legislative procedure’- is not as yet an absolute one. Furthermore criticism –expressed in practice by the highest constitutional judge in Germany, the Bundesverfassungsgericht- can be made regarding the composition of the parliament in view of the fact that during the elections once in five years the principle ‘one man one vote’ is not respected. The next point is related to the fact that the European Parliament, differently from an ordinary parliament, does not dispose of a -formal- right of initiative regarding policy making. And, additionally concerns are expressed regarding the lack of visibility of the members of the parliament (people hardly know members of the parliament) respectively the lack of transparency of their work.

Now, certainly it is true that -at least for the moment- a European demos does not exist. However, is that a real problem? In the context of the European Union cooperation the focus is more on Member States and the peoples of the Member States (Article 1 TEU refers to the ‘peoples of Europe’). That being the case it is difficult to criticize the existence of a parliament which operates in the interest of all these peoples. Then, indeed the scope of application of the co-decision procedure is not as yet an absolute one: a few policy domains, such as the common foreign and security policy, are not covered by this ‘ordinary’ decision making procedure. However, it may be expected –in conformity with the gradual character of the integration process- that this defect will be solved in the future, for example at the occasion of a next treaty amending procedure. As to the composition of the European Parliament, it is fair to say that the working of an international organisation (which the EU essentially is) cannot be fully compared with the functioning of a state. In that context there does exist a justification that, at the European level, the (federal) principle of equality of states has been preferred over the one regarding complete equality of their citizens, for example with regard to voting power. More particular it is the principle of ‘degressive’ proportionality which is of application -between the Member States- during the European elections.

Furthermore, it is true that the European Parliament does not possess a proper right of initiative regarding policy making. In view of the supranational characteristics of the EU cooperation the responsibility concerning the initiation of policies essentially rests with the Commission. The choice to make the Commission, the institution taking care of the general interest of the Union, responsible for the initiation of EU policy making, is an original one –in fact it is one of the foundations of the Schuman philosophy- which so far has proven to be effective. That being said, according to Article 225 TFEU the Parliament may request the Commission to submit an appropriate proposal on which it considers that a Union act is required. However, as is well known, the Commission is not obliged to give a positive follow-up to such a proposal. Finally, the observations regarding the lack of transparency and visibility concern more the legitimacy of the work of the parliament than that they demonstrate a problem regarding the democratic character of that work. That being said, of course something has to be done to overcome these objections. Here we touch upon the responsibility of a number of parties, such as the members of the European Parliament themselves, national politicians (members of national governments and members of national parliaments), but also the citizen him/herself who indeed can find easily numerous sources of information about EU activities on the internet.

So, as to all the objections and observations expressed an adequate answer can be provided.

If one then further analyses the working of the integration process globally speaking, one can establish that the Member States still play an essential role in policy making, as the architects of the treaties (‘Die Herren der Verträge’) and members of the European Council and the Council. On the other hand the Commission, in the interest of the European Union as a whole, performs the single and unique role as exclusive and independent policy initiator.

The directly elected European Parliament does represent the citizens of all Member States when being involved in the legislative process, the development of the EU external policies and the establishment of the EU budget. During the exercise of these responsibilities the European Parliament acts on equal footing with the Council, which means that without the agreement of the parliament no decision can be taken in these areas.

Finally but not least, national parliaments are in a position to control the activities of their ministers at the European level while also being able to survey the application, by the EU legislator, of the subsidiarity principle.

All in all it appears that the EU decision making process is composed of elements representing a careful balance between the interests of the European Union and the Member States on the one hand, and the interests of the citizens of the Member States on the other. In this process the European Parliament exercises important and typically parliamentary prerogatives.

The way this overall process functions in practice can be qualified as democratic, efficient and effective. At least hardly arguments are available to convincingly demonstrate that the process is undemocratic in character.

For all those reasons one only can hope that during the European elections of 22 to 25 May a high turnout will be achieved. The parliament deserves our vote!

Jaap W. de Zwaan
TEPSA Secretary-General

European Parliament Workshop on “The World Humanitarian Summit: time for action, not for complacency”, contribution by Rahul Chandran

TEPSA+DEVE

TEPSA hasWorkshop Worl Humanitarian Summit recently coordinated the participation of Rahul Chandran (Senior Policy Advisor, United Nations University Centre for Policy Research) in a workshop organised by the European Parliament’s Committee on Development and hosted by MEP Enrique Guerrero Salom, about the World Humanitarian Summit 2016.

For the workshop, which took place on 3 March 2016, Rahul Chandran prepared a contribution on “The World Humanitarian Summit 2016 – Requirements for an Ambitious Outcome”.

The paper outlines the need for Member States and other humanitarian stakeholders to take responsibility for the World Humanitarian Summit, drawing on the global consultations and the Secretary-General’s report, One Humanity: Shared Responsibility. It suggests that the core problem facing humanitarian action is that it is trying to deliver vastly different outcomes in a range of contexts that demand differentiated approaches. It suggests that the WHS cannot solve this wicked problem, but that through clear commitments linked to outcomes, it can begin to build systems that deliver as appropriate for each situation. It argues that Istanbul is a starting point, not an ending; highlights opportunities for deeper engagement; and makes a number of recommendations for commitments, including a format for commitments themselves.

Rahul Chandran is a Senior Policy Adviser with the United Nations University (UNU) Centre for Policy Research. His previous experience covers the areas of peacekeeping, development and humanitarianism, as well as a focus on UN reform. Before rejoining the United Nations, Mr. Chandran was the Deputy Director of the Center on International Cooperation, where he also helped to run the Afghanistan Reconstruction Program. Mr. Chandran also currently serves on the Consortium Advisory Group for the UK Department for International Development’s Secure Livelihoods Research Consortium, and acts as a peer reviewer for a number of journals. He has authored a number of reports, including “Humanitarianism in the Network Age” for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, “Civilian Capacity in the Aftermath of Conflict”, which received widespread commendation in the UN Security Council, “From Fragility to Resilience” for the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, as well as “Recovering From War”, a report commissioned by the British government. Mr. Chandran holds degrees from Yale University and the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.

The paper, as well as the full report of the workshop, can be downloaded here.