Search Climate Insights Directory

The report defines food security as food that is available at all times, accessible to all, nutritionally adequate, and culturally acceptable. It argues that while global food supply has generally kept pace with demand, food insecurity persists due to failures in distribution and individual access. The document evaluates four policy paths: food self-sufficiency (now largely seen as unrealistic), trade liberalization (which offers supply stability but can undermine local producers), food sovereignty (which emphasizes national policy autonomy and peasant rights), and multi-functional agriculture (which integrates environmental sustainability and non-commodity public values into farming). It concludes that a pragmatic, flexible approach is necessary to reconcile economic, social, and ecological objectives.

The document explores Environmental Policy Integration (EPI), defined as the integration of environmental objectives into non-environmental sector policies. It identifies a tension between 'rational' EPI (focused on efficiency and avoiding contradictions) and 'normative' EPI (which argues for 'principled priority' for the environment). The author categorizes the means of achieving EPI into normative factors (political leadership), organisational factors (overcoming sectoral compartmentalisation), and procedural factors (impact assessments and sector strategies). Using Sweden and the EU as primary examples, the paper notes that while legal and procedural frameworks are often established, translating these into substantive policy outputs remains a significant challenge.

The report examines the evolution of 'environmental security,' contrasting narrow research focused on violent conflict with a broader 'vulnerability perspective' that emphasizes livelihoods and health. It argues that environmental degradation is rarely a sole cause of conflict but interacts with socio-economic drivers to threaten vulnerable groups, particularly in developing countries. The authors advocate for integrating vulnerability analysis into sustainable development to better protect the poor from risks associated with climate change, urbanization, and large-scale infrastructure projects.

The report argues that corruption is a global phenomenon that severely impedes development by distorting public spending, undermining efficiency, and discouraging investment. It rejects the notion that corruption can foster development, asserting instead that it kills the 'development spirit'. For South Africa, the authors recommend a combination of economic liberalisation, democratic consolidation, and specific institutional reforms—including tax and procurement overhauls—driven by strong political will to ensure accountable governance.

The document analyzes the transition from traditional peacekeeping to multifunctional peace support operations (MPSOs) in the post-Cold War era. It highlights the confusion between peacekeeping, peace enforcement, and enforcement, and argues that the failure of many 1990s missions stemmed from a lack of clear authority, poor civil-military coordination, and the application of 'old scripts' to complex intra-state conflicts. The authors propose a reversal of operational tasking—starting with peace enforcement to establish a secure environment before transitioning to peacekeeping—and emphasize the need for specialized training and robust information gathering.

The document asserts that plastics are fundamentally incompatible with a true circular economy because they rely on non-renewable fossil feedstocks and leach toxic chemicals. It warns that the term 'circular economy' is often used as greenwashing by the plastics industry to relabel waste management and burning as circular. The author recommends capping plastics manufacture and use by 2025, eliminating toxic chemicals in a new global plastics agreement, and prioritizing reuse and refill over waste management.

The document argues that meaningful participation from diverse, affected groups is essential for a just transition to ensure procedural justice, improve policy efficiency, and increase ownership of climate policies. It identifies barriers to engagement, such as time constraints, costs, and low trust, and suggests a people-centered design approach to overcome them. The text highlights the necessity of coordination bodies to manage state and non-state actors across different political levels. Examples include Costa Rica's Just Transition Governance Scheme and South Africa's Presidential Climate Commission, both of which serve as platforms for multi-stakeholder collaboration and policy co-creation.

The document examines the conceptual dimensions of Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration (DDR), arguing that standard Western models often fail to account for the specificities of sub-Saharan Africa. It highlights the paradox of 'demobilisation without mobilisation' in regions where only minorities were militarised, and discusses the critical role of reintegration's economic and social components. The author further explores interrelated concepts such as the 'peace dividend', conversion, peace-building, and the evolving definition of security, emphasizing that successful DDR is essential for establishing strong political institutions and sustainable development in post-conflict states.

The document examines the distinct roles of national and corporate/facility GHG inventories, noting that they are often developed independently. It argues that integrating source-level data from facilities into national systems and sharing technical and institutional resources can enhance the quality of emissions data and strengthen mitigation strategies, particularly in resource-constrained environments.

The document argues that corporate environmental targets often focus on feasibility or competitiveness rather than ecological necessity. Drawing on work conducted with Mars Incorporated in 2016, it discusses the considerations managers must address when setting science-based targets for their impact on climate, land, and water to preserve resources for future generations.

The document distinguishes between a traditional bioeconomy focused on energy transition and industrial agricultural inputs and a 'bio-ecology bioeconomy' designed for the Amazon. It argues that for the tropical forest biome, the bioeconomy must be a deforestation-free system that integrates economic activity with socio-ecological landscapes, valuing the knowledge of local populations and the role of Amazonian cities in mediating the relationship between society and nature.