India, the world’s leading rice exporter, banned the export of non-Basmati white rice, accounting for 25% of its total exports (or 10% of the global rice trade). The ban aims to ensure availability to domestic Indian consumers and reduce domestic market prices, impacting global rice market accessibility, consumers, and producers across twelve regions. The study utilized the global simulation model (GSIM) to analyze the effects of trade restrictions on industries. The model uses national product differentiation to assess trade policy changes at global, regional, or national scales. It examined importer and exporter effects on trade values, tariff revenues, exporter surplus, and importer surplus. It found that India’s Voluntary Export Restraint (VER) ban on non-Basmati rice resulted in a higher local price and a negative global net welfare impact of USD 1.7 billion. The losses decreased to USD 1.4 billion when importing countries responded by reducing rice import tariffs by 25% and USD 1.1 billion when importing countries reduced tariffs by 75%. Sub-Saharan Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Gulf Cooperation Council regions were most affected. The study also found minimal impact on consumer surplus in India due to inelastic rice demand.

The complexity and interconnectivity of food systems and climate requires new thinking and research designs that better address the real‐world challenges of securing the resilience and sustainability of human and environmental systems. Central to such an approach is coherent action across sectors and scales. Although inter‐and transdisciplinary approaches are widely discussed, no convergence model exists to detect and prepare for food system vulnerabilities emerging from disruptions in climate systems, or to address the contributions to climate change from food system functions. Convergence research is critical to solving these vexing dynamics by integrating knowledge from multiple scientific domains to inform societal action. Here, we present a new convergent science model that incorporates four key components at the global, national and local level. Through the newly created Food and Climate Systems Transformation Alliance, we are now operationalizing, testing and refining the model to promote science convergence for tackling systemic vulnerabilities in the current food paradigm. Globally, funding relating to climate change and food systems transformation needs to pivot to support the levels of ambition, magnitude of need and complexity of challenges posed.

As concerns around water scarcity and energy security increase, so too has interest in the connections between these resources, through a concept called the water–energy nexus. Efforts to improve the integration of water and energy management and to understand their cross-sector relevance are growing. In particular, this paper develops a better empirical understanding on the extent to which governance settings hinder and/or enable policy coherence between the water and energy sectors through a comparative analysis of two case studies, namely, Los Angeles County, California, the United States, and the city of Beijing, China. This paper examines the extent to which the institutional context enables policy coordination within (vertically) and between (horizontally) the water and energy sectors in Beijing and Los Angeles. To do so, we propose a framework for analyzing policy integration for the water energy nexus based on environmental policy integration (EPI). The results highlight the multiple and flexible approaches of EPI in nexus governance, not least with regards to horizontal and vertical policy integration, but also in terms of explicit (i.e., intended) and implicit (i.e., unintended) coordination. The level of nexus-focused policy integration is highly dependent on the motivation at the local context and the criteria to evaluate policy success in each sector.

This study considers how and why agricultural groundwater users would limit their own water consumption. We find that voluntary governance arrangements are based on a form of legitimacy that stems from informal social processes. Agricultural irrigation reform in Nebraska, U.S. took place after decades of collaboration in informal social settings; this background of decentralized rulemaking contributed to legitimizing extraction limits in times of water stress. The dimensions of social legitimacy are assessed through triangulation of interview data, integrated management plans, workshop facilitation, and recordings of legal proceedings related to the Natural Resources Districts in the state of Nebraska. These districts initially placed voluntary limits on extraction but evolved to sanction violators for over‐consumption. Groundwater rules are accepted because they are set by publicly elected boards, leaders participate in a state‐wide leadership training network, and the districts are granted rule‐making authority by the state. Our results show that voluntary self‐limiting behavior can form the basis for binding legal requirements. The legitimacy of polycentric governance stems from social acceptance, inclusive membership, a prior history of collaboration, and an understanding of rules. The rules themselves are context‐specific and self‐made. We summarize these elements in an evaluation framework to test whether and how authority in other polycentric groundwater governance arrangements is justified and accepted.

Feeding the world’s growing population in ways that are effective, ethical and socially just, and protect the natural systems on which all life depends is one of the greatest challenges facing huma...