The possibility of using bioenergy as a climate change mitigation measure has sparked a discussion of whether and how bioenergy production contributes to sustainable development. We undertook a systematic review of the scientific literature to illuminate this relationship and found a limited scientific basis for policymaking. Our results indicate that knowledge on the sustainable development impacts of bioenergy production is concentrated in a few well‐studied countries, focuses on environmental and economic impacts, and mostly relates to dedicated agricultural biomass plantations. The scope and methodological approaches in studies differ widely and only a small share of the studies sufficiently reports on context and/or baseline conditions, which makes it difficult to get a general understanding of the attribution of impacts. Nevertheless, we identified regional patterns of positive or negative impacts for all categories – environmental, economic, institutional, social and technological. In general, economic and technological impacts were more frequently reported as positive, while social and environmental impacts were more frequently reported as negative (with the exception of impacts on direct substitution of GHG emission from fossil fuel). More focused and transparent research is needed to validate these patterns and develop a strong science underpinning for establishing policies and governance agreements that prevent/mitigate negative and promote positive impacts from bioenergy production.

Hitziger, M., M. Aragrande, J. Berezowski, M. Canali, V. Del Rio Vilas, S. Hoffmann, G. Igrejas, H. Keune, A. Lux, B. Mieghan, M. Palenberg, C. Pohl, M. Radeski, I. Richter, C. Robledo, R. Salerno, S. Savic, J. Schirmer, B. Vogler, and S. R. Rüegg. 2019. EVOLvINC: EValuating knOwLedge INtegration Capacity in multistakeholder governance. Ecology and Society 24(2):36. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-10935-240236

Research that focuses on changing problems of poverty, inequality, and food security may not always listen to what people who live in areas with sustainability problems need in order to make those changes. In our analysis of development research projects, we reflect on the challenges of participation faced by different actors in transdisciplinary science. For a decolonial turn, people need to be involved in making decisions about resources, research topics, and how to use knowledge.Transdisciplinary research is considered to offer contributions of science to sustainability transformations, partly because transdisciplinary approaches aim to increase the relevance, credibility, and legitimacy of scientific research by ensuring the active participation of non-academic actors in research. However, the possible impact of transdisciplinary research on decolonial sustainability science ‐ understood as actively undoing Euro-North American centricity, dispossession, racism, and ongoing power imbalances in inequitable social-ecological systems ‐ and simultaneous response to scientific rigor remain under debate. Thus, this article assesses the contributions of transdisciplinary research projects to decolonial sustainability science based on empirical information. To do so, we analyze a sample of 43 development research projects of theSwiss Programme for Research on Global Issues for Development (r4d programme)in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We found that despite significant differences in approaches, Global-North-dominated sustainability science still has far to go to achieve the decolonial potential of transdisciplinarity, enabling different actors’ participation.

Purpose: Although the importance of climate change is generally acknowledged, its impacts are often not taken into account explicitly when planning development projects. This being due to limited resources, among others, this paper aims to propose a simple and low-cost approach to assess the viability of human activities under climate change. Design/methodology/approach: Many human activities are feasible only within a narrow range of climatic conditions. Comparing such “climate corridors” with future climate projections provides an intuitive yet quantitative means for assessing needs for, and the viability of, adaptation activities under climate change. Findings: The approach was tested within development projects in Pakistan, Peru and Tajikistan. The approach was shown to work well for forestry and agriculture, indicating positive/negative prospects for wheat in two districts in Pakistan, temperature constraints for maize in Peru and widening elevation ranges for walnut trees in Tajikistan. Practical implications: Climate corridor analyses feed into the preparation of Local Adaptation Plans of Action in Pakistan. Originality/value: The simplicity and robustness of climate corridor analysis allow for efficient analysis and communication of climate change impacts. It works when data availability is limited, but it can as well accommodate a wide range of complexities. It has proven to be an effective vehicle for mainstreaming climate change into adaptation planning.

Are there aspects of complexity that are characteristic for research for development projects? Our study shows what are these aspects, how they affect research and what practices seem to be promising for dealing with the increasing levels of complexity. The need to deal with complexity is getting increasingly attention in research for development projects implemented through transboundary research partnerships between organisations from the Global North and the Global South. However, less is known about aspects beyond the systems under study that still affect complexity in the research project. We conducted an experience capitalization of five transboundary research partnerships undertaking research in 14 countries in the Global South. We found that the combination of multiple contexts, the cultural and disciplinary diversity of the transboundary research partnerships, and the set of rules and proceedings from the funding mechanism affect the levels of complexity. We further identified that a transdisciplinary approach and several related practices, like intercultural communication or integrative partnerships, are promising ways of dealing with complexity. Current structures in research for development need to improve in order to fully use the potential of transdisciplinarity for sustainability transformation.