• Energy Research

L'exploitation minière à petite échelle de l'or soutient la vie de millions de personnes et pourtant, elle stimule les dommages environnementaux et les conflits sociaux. Les crises environnementales mondiales appellent à un changement fondamental de la façon dont les gens vivent sur la planète. Pour l'extraction aurifère à petite échelle, cela soulève des questions quant à savoir si la dynamique actuelle peut fournir une base pour des transformations durables. Proposant la notion de parcours de vie de l'or pour se concentrer sur l'expérience vécue de l'exploitation minière et des ressources aurifères en tant que phénomènes relationnels, nous nous demandons à quoi ressemble la durabilité du point de vue des différents mineurs et sondons la dynamique pratique de la transformation actuelle. Notre méthodologie est axée sur les sciences sociales et transdisciplinaire. À partir de recherches multi-sites et trans-régionales entre l'Amérique du Sud et l'Afrique, nous tirons des cas du Suriname, de la Guinée Conakry et de l'Ouganda. Notre étude révèle que les modes de vie de l'or expriment différents aspects de la durabilité : le maintien de la vie quotidienne dans l'exploitation minière ; les discours encadrant les pratiques minières ; et la répression gouvernementale de l'exploitation minière. Par conséquent, comme le démontrent nos données empiriques, les perspectives des mineurs sur la durabilité gagnent du contenu non pas de manière isolée, mais dans le cadre de modes de vie aurifères intégrés dans différents contextes et façonnés par la dynamique sociétale. En fin de compte, la puissance transformatrice de l'extraction aurifère à petite échelle se situe dans la vie personnelle et la dynamique précaire plutôt que dans les promesses scintillantes d'un avenir durable. La minería de oro a pequeña escala sostiene la vida de millones de personas y, sin embargo, estimula los daños ambientales y los conflictos sociales. El impulso de las crisis ambientales globales exige un cambio fundamental en la forma en que las personas viven en el planeta. Para la minería de oro a pequeña escala, esto plantea dudas sobre si la dinámica actual puede proporcionar una base para las transformaciones de sostenibilidad. Al proponer la noción de formas de vida de oro para centrarse en la experiencia vivida de la minería y los recursos de oro como fenómenos relacionales, nos preguntamos cómo se ve la sostenibilidad desde las perspectivas de diferentes mineros e investigamos la dinámica de la práctica de la transformación actual. Nuestra metodología está dirigida por las ciencias sociales y es transdisciplinaria. A partir de investigaciones multisituadas y transregionales entre América del Sur y África, extraemos casos de Surinam, Guinea Conakry y Uganda. Nuestro estudio encuentra que las formas de vida del oro dan expresión a diferentes aspectos de la sostenibilidad: el mantenimiento de la vida cotidiana en la minería; los discursos que enmarcan las prácticas mineras; y la represión gubernamental de la minería. Por lo tanto, como demuestran nuestros datos empíricos, las perspectivas de los mineros sobre la sostenibilidad ganan contenido no de forma aislada, sino como parte de las formas de vida del oro incrustadas en diferentes contextos y moldeadas por la dinámica social. En última instancia, la potencia transformadora de la minería de oro a pequeña escala se encuentra en la vida personal y en dinámicas precarias en lugar de promesas brillantes de un futuro sostenible. Small-scale gold mining sustains millions of people's lives and yet it stimulates environmental harms and social conflicts. Global environmental crises drive calls for fundamental change to how people live on the planet. For small-scale gold mining, this raises questions about whether current dynamics can provide a basis for sustainability transformations. Proposing the notion of gold lifeways to focus on the lived experience of mining and gold resources as relational phenomena, we ask what sustainability looks like from different miners' perspectives and probe the practice dynamics of current transformation. Our methodology is social science-led and transdisciplinary. From multi-sited and trans-regional research between South America and Africa, we draw cases from Suriname, Guinea Conakry, and Uganda. Our study finds that gold lifeways give expression to different strands of sustainability: sustaining everyday life in mining; discourses framing mining practices; and government repression of mining. Hence, as our empirical data demonstrates, miner perspectives on sustainability gain content not in isolation, but as part of gold lifeways embedded within different contexts and shaped by societal dynamics. Ultimately, the transformative potency of small-scale gold mining is located in personal lives and precarious dynamics rather than glittering promises of a sustainable future. يحافظ تعدين الذهب على نطاق صغير على حياة الملايين من الناس، ومع ذلك فإنه يحفز الأضرار البيئية والصراعات الاجتماعية. تدفع الأزمات البيئية العالمية الدعوات إلى تغيير جذري في الطريقة التي يعيش بها الناس على هذا الكوكب. بالنسبة لتعدين الذهب على نطاق صغير، يثير هذا تساؤلات حول ما إذا كانت الديناميكيات الحالية يمكن أن توفر أساسًا لتحولات الاستدامة. باقتراح فكرة طرق حياة الذهب للتركيز على التجربة الحية للتعدين وموارد الذهب كظواهر علائقية، نسأل كيف تبدو الاستدامة من وجهات نظر عمال المناجم المختلفة ونتحقق من ديناميكيات الممارسة للتحول الحالي. منهجيتنا هي التي تقودها العلوم الاجتماعية ومتعددة التخصصات. من الأبحاث متعددة المواقع وعبر الإقليمية بين أمريكا الجنوبية وأفريقيا، نستخلص حالات من سورينام وغينيا كوناكري وأوغندا. وجدت دراستنا أن طرق الحياة الذهبية تعبر عن خيوط مختلفة من الاستدامة: الحفاظ على الحياة اليومية في التعدين ؛ والخطابات التي تؤطر ممارسات التعدين ؛ والقمع الحكومي للتعدين. وبالتالي، كما توضح بياناتنا التجريبية، فإن وجهات نظر المعدنين حول الاستدامة تكتسب المحتوى ليس بمعزل عن الآخرين، ولكن كجزء من طرق الحياة الذهبية المضمنة في سياقات مختلفة والتي تشكلها الديناميكيات المجتمعية. في نهاية المطاف، تقع القوة التحويلية لتعدين الذهب على نطاق صغير في الحياة الشخصية والديناميكيات غير المستقرة بدلاً من الوعود المتلألئة بمستقبل مستدام.

Non-technical summaryWe summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.Technical summaryA synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.Social media summaryHow do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.

Climate change will continue to have a largely detrimental impact on the agricultural sector worldwide because of predicted rising temperatures, variable rainfall, and an increase in extreme weather events. Reduced crop yields will lead to higher food prices and increased hardship for low income populations, especially in urban areas. Action on climate change is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG 13) and is linked to the Paris Climate Agreement. The research challenge posed by climate change is so complex that a trans-disciplinary response is required, one that brings together researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers in networks where the lines between “research” and “development” become deliberately blurred. Fostering such networks will require researchers, throughout the world, not only to work across disciplines but also to pursue new South–North and South–South partnerships incorporating policy-makers and practitioners. We use our diverse research experiences to describe the emergence of such networks, such as the Direct Seeded Rice Consortium (DSRC) in South and Southeast Asia, and to identify lessons on how to facilitate and strengthen the development of trans-disciplinary responses to climate change.

AbstractIn response to the climate crisis, there has been much focus on climate-smart agriculture (CSA); namely, technologies and practices that enhance adaptation, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contribute to food security; the so-called triple win. Success has tended to be measured in terms of the number of farmers adopting CSA with less focus given to the impacts especially on human development. CSA can inadvertently lead to ‘maladaptation’ whereby interventions reinforce existing vulnerabilities either by benefitting powerful elites or by transferring risks and exposure between groups. Such maladaptive outcomes often stem from overly technical adaptation programming that is driven by external objectives and discounts the social and political dynamics of vulnerability. Increasingly a more nuanced picture is emerging. This reveals how a failure to contextualize CSA in relation to the structural socio-economic dynamics associated with agricultural systems that render some categories of farmer especially vulnerable to climate change, undermines CSA’s contribution to reducing rural poverty and increasing equity. In response, there is a growing focus on transformative orientations that pursue a more deep-seated approach to social, institutional, technological and cultural change in order to address the structural contributors to vulnerability and differential exposure to climate risk. Addressing these questions requires a robust consideration of the social contexts and power relations through which agriculture is both researched and practiced. For agriculture to be transformative and contribute to broader development goals, a greater emphasis is needed on issues of farmer heterogeneity, the dangers of maladaptation and the importance of social equity. This entails recognizing that resilience encompasses both agro- and socio-ecological dimensions. Furthermore, practitioners need to be more cognizant of the dangers of (i) benefiting groups of already better off farmers at the expense of the most vulnerable and/or (ii) focusing on farmers for whom agriculture is not a pathway out of poverty. The success of these approaches rests on genuine transdisciplinary partnerships and systems approaches that ensure adaptation and mitigation goals along with more equitable incomes, food security and development. The greater emphasis on social equity and human well-being distinguishes climate-resilient from climate-smart agriculture.

A strong indigenous capacity for credible, salient and legitimate knowledge production is crucial to support African countries in developing their economies and societies inclusively and sustainably. In this article, we aim to quantify the current and historic capacity for African knowledge production to support the green economy in Africa, and identify important topical gaps. With a focus on topics relating to Governing Inclusive Green Growth in Africa (GIGGA), our research mapped how much Africa-focused research is being produced, from where and which African countries have higher or lower supply; and the topical focus of the research, mapping it against the African GIGGA policy discourses visible in government strategies. To do this we undertook a systematic review using a two-stage process, mapping the literature for GIGGA. This resulted in 960 verified citations. Content analysis of core metadata and article abstracts enabled mapping of the research focus. The analysis revealed a significant role for South Africa as both the pre-eminent producer of GIGGA literature as well as the geographic focus of GIGGA research, with Nigeria, Ethiopia and Kenya representing emerging loci of credible, African-relevant knowledge production. Topically, there was a strong emphasis on development, policy and environment while topics important for growth that is inclusive in character were infrequent or absent. Overall the results reinforced the view that investment is needed in research on inclusive green growth, linked to capacity building for knowledge production systems in Africa. Furthermore, from a policy perspective, policy makers and academics need to actively explore best to collaborate to ensure that academic research informs government policy.

Climate variability is a major source of risk to smallholder farmers and pastoralists, particularly in dryland regions. A growing body of evidence links climate-related risk to the extent and the persistence of rural poverty in these environments. Stochastic shocks erode smallholder farmers’ long-term livelihood potential through loss of productive assets. The resulting uncertainty impedes progress out of poverty by acting as a disincentive to investment in agriculture – by farmers, rural financial services, value chain institutions and governments. We assess evidence published in the last ten years that a set of production technologies and institutional options for managing risk can stabilize production and incomes, protect assets in the face of shocks, enhance uptake of improved technologies and practices, improve farmer welfare, and contribute to poverty reduction in risk-prone smallholder agricultural systems. Production technologies and practices such as stress-adapted crop germplasm, conservation agriculture, and diversified production systems stabilize agricultural production and incomes and, hence, reduce the adverse impacts of climate-related risk under some circumstances. Institutional interventions such as index-based insurance, adaptive safety nets and climate services play a complementary role in enabling farmers to manage risk, overcome risk-related barriers to adoption of improved technologies and practices, and protect their assets against the impacts of extreme climatic events. While some research documents improvements in household welfare indicators, there is limited evidence that the risk-reduction benefits of the interventions reviewed have benefited significant numbers of chronically poor farmers. We discuss the roles that climate-risk management interventions can play in efforts to reduce rural poverty, and the need for further research on identifying and targeting environments and farming populations where improved climate risk management could accelerate efforts to reduce rural poverty.