Search Climate Insights Directory

The report by Mighty Earth characterizes Cargill as a major contributor to global deforestation, climate change, and human rights violations. It details the company's role in destroying the Amazon and Gran Chaco ecosystems for soy production, the use of child labor in West African cocoa production, and significant pollution of air and water in the United States. The document highlights a pattern of 'misleading' corporate pledges by CEO David MacLennan, noting that the company often resists expanding sustainability protections to new regions like the Brazilian Cerrado. It specifically criticizes major clients such as Ahold Delhaize, McDonald's, and Sysco for continuing to support Cargill despite their own public sustainability commitments.

The report by Mighty Earth characterizes Cargill as a major contributor to global environmental and human rights crises. It details the company's role in the deforestation of the Amazon, Cerrado, and Gran Chaco for soy production, as well as illegal deforestation in West African national parks for cocoa. The document alleges systemic failures in Cargill's sustainability promises, citing continued use of child slave labor in cocoa harvests and severe water and air pollution in the United States. It concludes that corporate customers like McDonald's and Ahold Delhaize are complicit by continuing to source from Cargill despite the company's documented record of deception and ecological damage.

This report provides a spatial analysis of disaster incidence in Central America and the Dominican Republic between 1950 and 2020. It identifies that hydrometeorological events, specifically floods and landslides, are the most recurrent threats, often coinciding with high-density urban areas and coastal zones. The study highlights a significant increase in recorded disasters since 1990, peaking in 2010. It further correlates disaster risk with physical variables, noting that 70.7% of records occur below 1,000 meters above sea level and that a high percentage of critical territories are located in areas with medium to high population density. The analysis also observes a decline in forest cover and an increase in pasture land from 1990 to 2018, linking these land-use changes to increased disaster vulnerability.

The document introduces 'biocultural community protocols' as tools for Indigenous and local communities to articulate their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes to external actors. It provides a structured four-part framework for facilitators to guide communities through the process of documentation, implementation, and reflection. The toolkit emphasizes endogenous development, legal empowerment, and participatory methods—such as community mapping, participatory video, and 'Legislative Theatre'—to reduce power asymmetries and safeguard collective biocultural heritage against external threats like land grabbing and industrial resource extraction.

The document defines biocultural community protocols as participatory instruments used by Indigenous and local communities to document their customary laws, values, and decision-making processes. These protocols aim to bridge the gap between community worldviews and external actors—such as governments and companies—to prevent resource exploitation and ensure the respect of customary stewardship. The toolkit outlines a four-part process: understanding the community, documenting the protocol, using it for engagement, and reflecting on outcomes. It provides a wide array of participatory tools, including community sketch maps, trend line analysis, and participatory theatre, to empower communities through legal awareness and social mobilization.

The document argues that international financial institutions (IFIs) often fund projects in energy, resource extraction, and infrastructure that lead to human rights abuses and environmental damage. It calls on the UN Human Rights Council to hold these institutions and their member states accountable, recommending the adoption of human rights due diligence, impact assessments, and safeguard policies consistent with international law.

The research argues that terrorism creates a 'window of opportunity' for military actors to increase their political influence without seizing full state control. It identifies two primary mechanisms: a 'pulling' effect, where civilian authorities demand military expertise to combat threats, and a 'pushing' effect, where the military exploits informational advantages to advance its own interests. Using global panel data from 1984 to 2004, the authors find that both actual domestic terror attacks and the perceived probability of aggregate terrorism are positively associated with higher levels of military involvement in politics.

The authors argue that International Financial Institutions (IFIs), such as the IMF and World Bank, exercise extraordinary leverage in post-conflict states to impose neoliberal reforms that often exacerbate gendered insecurity. By introducing the concept of 'gendered circuits of violence,' the paper demonstrates how macroeconomic policies—including austerity, debt-based financialization, and extractive resource economics—disproportionately burden women and marginalized groups. The text highlights that while IFIs have adopted the rhetoric of gender equality as 'smart economics,' these efforts are often superficial and fail to address the material realities of unpaid care work and structural violence. Case studies from Ukraine, East Timor, and the Western Balkans illustrate how IFI-mandated reforms can lead to increased household debt, the erosion of social welfare, and even the incitement of physical violence against women.

The report argues that formal education systems can either fuel or mitigate armed conflict depending on their inclusivity, quality, and relationship with the community. Through case studies in Guatemala, Nepal, and Liberia, the author identifies four conflict-transforming concepts: equitable inclusion, positive socialization, the creation of social capital, and the provision of socio-economic benefits. The study finds that educational exclusion and authoritarian teaching methods often mirror and reinforce the structural inequalities that drive conflict, while participatory, child-centered education and equitable resource distribution can raise the opportunity costs of joining rebellions and foster a culture of non-violence. The report recommends that national governments and international donors integrate education into peacebuilding processes, prioritize social justice in curricula, and better link schooling to the labor market to ensure that education provides tangible hope and economic mobility.

The document analyzes the role of the Assembly of Civil Society (ASC) in the Guatemalan peace process (1990–1996). While the ASC successfully influenced agreements on indigenous rights, it was marginalized during sensitive negotiations on the Truth Commission to avoid derailing the peace process. The author argues that this illustrates a conflict between process-related norms (inclusivity) and the paramount goal of stopping violence, suggesting that international support should shift toward empowering civil society during the implementation phase of peace agreements.

The author examines the 'quantitative-qualitative mismatch' in conflict studies, where large-N statistical analyses often find no link between income inequality and violence, while case studies suggest a strong connection. The paper posits that political violence is a group phenomenon and therefore driven by horizontal inequalities (HIs)—systematic disparities between ethnic, religious, or regional groups—rather than vertical inequalities (VI) between individuals. The author proposes a theoretical framework where HIs create both motives (grievances) and opportunities (resources and cohesion) for mobilization. The review concludes that while measuring HIs is challenging, evidence from survey-based data and disaggregated studies supports the link between HIs and various forms of political violence, including civil war and urban disorder.

The authors present the During-Conflict Justice (DCJ) dataset, which catalogues 2,205 justice processes across 204 internal armed conflicts in 108 countries between 1946 and 2011. The research identifies that DCJ is a common tool, appearing in over 60% of conflicts since WWII, with governments being the primary adopters (70.4%). The study finds that democratic governments are more likely to use DCJ, particularly trials, truth commissions, and reparations, compared to autocracies. Rebel groups tend to use DCJ more frequently when fighting democracies and as their own relative military strength increases. Analysis suggests that government-initiated DCJ is correlated with a reduction in battle deaths in the following year and a higher likelihood of the conflict ending in a negotiated settlement rather than a military victory.

The author argues that the existing theory of 'violent pluralism' ignores the gendered nature of political violence in Latin America. By analyzing internally displaced women's organizations in Colombia and high-profile murders of activists in Brazil, El Salvador, Honduras, and Mexico, the paper identifies a three-pronged relationship: gendered violence as an obstacle to organizing, organizing as a response to violence, and organizing as a cause of further violence. The author highlights how states often 'privatize' the deaths of women activists by framing them as domestic or criminal rather than political.

The authors present the Non-State Actors (NSA) in Civil Wars dataset, covering internal armed conflicts from 1945 to 2011. The dataset shifts the unit of analysis from country-years to state-rebel group dyad spells, allowing researchers to examine the specific characteristics of opposition forces rather than just macro-level state variables. Key indicators include rebel strength relative to the government, territorial control, organizational structure (such as the presence of political wings), and external support from states or non-state actors. Descriptive statistics from the dataset show that while over 85% of rebel groups are weaker than their governments, nearly half are at least equal in their specific capacities to mobilize support, procure arms, and fight. The dataset is designed to be compatible with the Uppsala Conflict Data Project (UCDP) Dyadic Dataset to facilitate data aggregation across different research projects.

The research examines the causal chain from formal (de jure) power-sharing institutions to peace, arguing that institutions operate primarily by inducing specific behavioral practices (de facto power-sharing). Using a global dataset of 180 countries from 1975 to 2010, the authors find that inclusive institutions increase the share of ethnic groups in government, which reduces the likelihood of rebellions by excluded groups but increases the risk of infighting among coalition partners. Dispersive institutions, such as federalism, are found to decrease the risk of ethnic conflict by increasing regional autonomy for minorities, although this effect is less statistically robust than that of inclusive institutions.

The document examines the contested nature of 'power sharing,' noting that it is often implemented as a tool for conflict resolution but yields contradictory results in research. It identifies four primary types of power sharing: political, military, territorial, and economic. The author argues that findings vary based on whether researchers view power sharing as a means to achieve stable democracy (consociationalism) or as a tool for postconflict conflict management. While some studies suggest inclusive institutions prolong peace by addressing rebel security concerns, others argue they reward violence, strengthen ethnic divisions, and hinder democratic accountability by marginalizing opposition.

The research examines the intersection of Norway's national identity as a gender-equal and peace-promoting nation with its diplomatic practices. Through interviews with ten diplomats, the authors analyze how 'state feminism' has transitioned from domestic policy to foreign policy, specifically within the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda. The findings highlight a strategic tension: while Norway promotes gender equality to enhance its international branding and credibility as a neutral facilitator, it avoids the explicit label of 'feminist foreign policy' to prevent being perceived as too value-driven or Western, which could jeopardize its role as a benign peace facilitator. The document notes a shift from early, male-dominated peace efforts to more professionalized, gender-balanced teams in recent processes like those in Colombia and the Philippines.

The report examines the landscape of transitional justice in Cyprus, focusing on the tension between hegemonic national narratives and the need for a bicommunal reckoning with the past. It analyzes the role of the Committee on Missing Persons (cMp), the lack of domestic criminal prosecutions, and the emergence of civil society-led documentation and memorialisation projects. The authors argue that while political leaders fear that truth-seeking may destabilise peace negotiations, there is significant public support for such processes. The document recommends that political leadership and civil society collaborate on strategies to address the legacy of violence, regardless of the outcome of peace settlements.

The research paper analyzes the strategic motivations for terrorism in civil wars using a new dataset linking the Uppsala/PRIO Armed Conflict Data and the Global Terrorism Database. It argues that terrorism serves to coerce governments and communicate resolve, particularly for militarily weaker groups. The study finds that the frequency of attacks increases with government repression and press freedom. Furthermore, it identifies a correlation between group ideology and targeting: groups with universalist ideologies (e.g., Marxist-socialist) predominantly target 'hard' official targets, while those with sectarian or religious ideologies are more likely to target 'soft' civilian targets due to stronger 'othering' of out-groups.

The document analyzes the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in 13 Latin American countries, focusing on mainstreaming SDGs into national policies, operationalization, and social ownership. While most countries found aligning national priorities with SDGs relatively simple, they face significant hurdles in cross-sectoral coordination, long-term budgetary guarantees, and the inclusion of subnational governments and civil society. The report highlights diverse national strategies, ranging from Colombia's integration of SDGs into its national development plan to Mexico's alignment of over 400 budget indicators with SDG targets.