No abstract

Emerging economies are struggling to make their development plans sustainable. India, for example, has adopted the co-benefits approach in its climate policy to integrate interconnected environmental, economic and social issues. The literature treats co-benefits as a politically neutral technocratic policy instrument for reducing greenhouse gases. But, what are the real potential benefits and limits of the co-benefits approach in the Indian institutional context? Drawing on discursive institutionalism, we highlight the interplay between 'co-benefits', the discursive processes through which it has evolved, the interests it has given expression to, and the Indian institutional context that mediates these processes. The successful adoption of this approach can be explained through the flexibility with which different actors interpret it and express their interests through storylines. Yet, this interpretive flexibility also explains the limited success in implementing this approach in India's energy sector. To overcome existing limitations, we suggest the necessity of triple-loop transformational learning.

Oxfam's Pink Phones project in Cambodia involves the distribution of mobile phones to women in rural communities. The phones enable them to gain access to vital farming information such as market prices for their crops and weather information.. Photo: Simon Rawles/Oxfam MISSING OUT ON SMALL IS BEAUTIFULThe EU's failure to deliver on policy commitments to support smallholder agriculture in developing countries With the world on the brink of an unprecedented four famines, donor countries must urgently step up efforts to tackle the structural causes of hunger and poverty. Food security and sustainable agriculture are among the European Union's key priorities for development cooperation. The EU is committed to longterm solutions, including empowering smallholders, in particular women, and supporting environmentally sustainable approaches in agriculture. In practice, however, its development aid to the agricultural sector does not live up to its commitments. An Oxfam analysis of more than 7,500 EU-funded projects reveals a significant lack of transparency in reporting, casting doubt on the accountability of the EU's aid. Based on the reported data, only a small portion of the EU's agricultural development aid complies with the aim of targeting small-scale producers and women. Funding is also biased towards industrial and export crops and countries of strategic interest, at the expense of smallholders and countries most in need.