FacebookTwitterLinkedInCopy LinkEmailPrint
What is "Just Transition"?

Actions to Transform Food Systems under Climate Change

This report identifies the current failures of the global food system and defines four areas in which it can be transformed to meet food and nutritional demands and combat climate change.


“This report identifies the current failures of global food systems in eliminating food insecurity, providing nutritious food, and mitigating climate change. The global food system is currently a major contributor to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and fails to provide an adequate pathway to meet the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals.

To correct these food system failures, the authors recommend 11 transformative actions across four distinct categories: rerouting farming practices to eliminate GHG emissions and increase female and youth participation; de-risking farm livelihoods to increase resiliency against variable weather and extreme events; reducing emissions through dietary shifts and reductions in food waste; and realigning policies and finance to support social movements and spur innovation.

The costs of not reforming global food systems include increased food and nutrition insecurity, decreased smallholder participation, increased rural poverty, increased gender disparities and social inclusion, lost opportunities for rural youth, increased sensitivity to changing climate and extreme weather events, and loss of biodiversity.”

An Institutional Analysis of Biofuel Policies and their Social Implications: Lessons from Brazil, India and Indonesia

This report assesses the social and environmental impacts of the ambitious biofuel policy programs of Brazil, India, and Indonesia.


“This comparative assessment of Brazil, India, and Indonesia—which have sought to spur rural development through the development of biofuel alternatives—indicates there are several limitations associated with socially oriented biofuel policy. In particular, these countries adopted a two-tiered approach that largely relied upon established agribusiness and only incorporated the rural poor by having them cultivate non-food crops on “marginal lands.” The author offers a list of biofuel policy recommendations for achieving more extensive socioeconomic benefits for the rural poor.

For the three countries, biofuels policy tools often included subsidies, tax incentives, and blending mandates. However, these poorly designed, top-down policies failed to alleviate the burdens of the rural poor and were later revised. These approaches often expanded incentives and markets for corporations instead of for smallholders, failed to address equity issues, and lacked smallholder participation. These policy failures resulted in increased food insecurity, exploitation of smallholders by government and agribusiness, increased instances of monoculture (which can result in reduced crop yield or resilience and therefore lost income), and poor quality of employment opportunities (as reflected in increases in seasonal and migrant work).

In the future, more participatory decision-making in biofuel policies is needed to avoid these failures and improve outcomes for the rural poor. The report identifies three elements that appear to be crucial to successful biofuel policies: combination of feedstock and food production; inclusion of the concerns and interests of smallholders; and provisions for smallholders to gradually ascend in the value chain, specifically in expanding local ownership of oil extraction facilities.”