No abstract

Attention to the linkages between climate change and security has been punctuated in the past decade by high-level political discourses and a wide array of diverse publications. Yet these linkages remain often portrayed in a catastrophic and deterministic framing that does not make for rational debate on the impacts of climate change on human security. This paper seeks to engage social sciences in assessing the causes and consequences of climate change on human security, so that these can be supported by plausible and testable theories and models, and not just policy rhetoric. In this paper we review the state of knowledge on security dimensions of climate change; set out the major conclusions from the series of studies in this special issue, and point to emerging issues in the agenda for sustained research in this area.

Environmental peacebuilding is a rapidly growing field of research and practice at the intersection of environment, conflict, peace and security. Focusing on these linkages is crucial in a time when the environment is a core issue of international politics and the number of armed conflicts remains high. This article introduces a special issue with a particular emphasis on environmental opportunities for building and sustaining peace. We first detail the definitions, theoretical assumptions and intellectual background of environmental peacebuilding. The article then provides context for the special issue by briefly reviewing core findings and debates of the first two generations of environmental peacebuilding research. Finally, we identify knowledge gaps that should be addressed in the next generation of research, and to which the articles in this special issue contribute: bottom-up approaches, gender, conflict-sensitive programming, use of big data and frontier technology, and monitoring and evaluation.

Issues associated with state inability (or incapacity) to meet international commitments-and how to build such capacity-are now ubiquitous in the theorizing, practice and research agendas of international environmental cooperation. Yet "capacity" and "capacity building" remain under-specified at the conceptual level. They are neglected areas of empirical research, and generally unreflective in practice. International and national level policy-makers are struggling with questions about how best to enhance state, local and NGO capacities to meet international commitments. To illustrate the need for more conceptual attention and empirical research around issues of public sector capacity, the article presents a multi-dimensional understanding of public sector capacity and highlights programs that appear to be successfully building capacity in recipient countries and programs that seem to be unsuccessful. The article draws examples from multilateral assistance programs within regional marine pollution control regimes and from bilateral assistance programs associated with cleaning up radioactive legacies of the Cold War in post-communist states. Copyright (c) 2001 Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Modern food, energy, and water (FEW) systems are the product of technologies, techniques, and policies developed to address the needs of a given sector (e.g., energy or agriculture). Wastes from each sector are typically managed separately, and the production systems underlying FEW have traditionally treated pollution and waste as externalities simply diffused into the ambient environment. Integrative management that optimizes resource use presents opportunities for improving the efficiency of FEW systems. This paper explains how FEW systems can be optimized to (1) repurpose or cycle waste products, (2) internalize traditional externalities, and (3) integrate wastes with resource inputs across systems by diverting waste by-products from one system to meet demands of another. It identifies the means for Bclosing the loop^in production systems. Examples include management of legacy wastes from fossil fuel industries (coal and natural gas) and integrative designs for advanced renewable systems (biogas from waste, bioenergy from CAM plants, and solar). It concludes with a discussion of how studying the governance of such systems can assist in tackling interconnected problems present in FEW systems. New governance arrangements are needed to develop solutions that can align with regulatory frameworks, economics incentive, and policies. Four aspects of governances (property rights, policy design, financing, and scale) emerge as tools to facilitate improved institutional design that stimulates integrative management, technology innovation and deployment, and community development. The conclusion offers a framework through which integrative management of FEW systems can be linked to value chains in closed-loop systems.