Uneven subnational energy policy and regulatory geographies in the United States are a widely recognised reality, resulting from the absence of a concerted federal effort towards climate change and sustainable energy development. Against this backdrop, the rise of citizen-led energy transitions or Grassroots Energy Communities (GECs) in liberal and conservative states signals an opportunity for fostering a common ground for climate action, only to be undermined by questions concerning their touted countervailing potential against the mainstream energy system. With particular reference to conservative political contexts, this article presents a comparative case study of Grassroots Energy Communities arising amidst uneven socio-spatial circumstances. By interrogating lived experiences and situated socio-material practices, the article offers interesting theoretical, practical and policy insights. By explicating the materiality of technical devices, purposively rendered meaningful in context and politicised towards particular political and economic ends, the study shows how socio-material processes not only help forge strategic alliances between potentially antagonistic stakeholders but also lead to the obfuscation of power differentials. From a policy perspective, this study shows how conservative ideology – despite hyper-nationalist invocations – subjects local citizen-led efforts to the vicissitudes of global capital by selectively justifying state support to facilitate its circulation.
Since the approval of COVID-19 vaccines, international efforts have intensified on vaccination schemes perceived as the only light at the end of the tunnel. Governments are working tirelessly to scale up the number of vaccinated people, just as vaccine manufacturers are stretching their facilities to meet the increasing demand for doses. The international community is trying to help the poorest countries in the world by improving vaccine supplies and removing obstacles. In this regard, India and South Africa have applied to World Trade Organisation to waive vaccine-related intellectual property rights. The proposal has sparked off academic debates as to its merit. This article addresses the waiver controversy. Following a critical review of both dimensions of the controversy, the article concentrates on the extent to which the waiver application contradicts the theoretical justification of the patent system. It concludes that the concerns raised over the conflict between the waiver proposal and the patent right philosophy are indefensible.
Sudan is situated in Sub-Saharan Africa, covering an area of about 1.9 million km 2 and has a population of 43 million. It is regarded as one of the countries in the world where human development is least advanced with a poverty rate of about 46%. Sudan's economy is based on agriculture, which contributes about one-third of the (GDP). Sudan's agriculture has three distinct crop and three distinct livestock production systems. The Crop production systems are: irrigated, traditional and mechanized rain-fed farming. The livestock production systems are: nomadic, transhumant and sedentary systems. The annual cultivated land is around 20 million hectares, more than 85% of which are rain-fed. The livestock population is estimated at 105 million heads concentrated in nomadic and transhumant production systems. Water resources in Sudan are: river Nile and its tributaries, seasonal streams, underground water and surface water. Sources of energy are: biomass; electricity (hydro and fossil fuels) and petroleum products, accounting for about 78,8% and 14%, respectively, of the total energy balance. Sudan has significant renewable energy resources. Particularly solar energy is well distributed all over the country thus having the potential to facilitate the provision of energy services to rural settlements. Sudanese land cover classes indicated that 51% of the country area is bare rocks and soil, agriculture land is 13%, and tree cover and herbaceous vegetation cover 36% of the total Sudan area. The annual crop cultivated area is around 20 million ha and the main crops occupying more than 90% of the cultivated area are sorghum, millet, wheat, sesame and groundnut. Rangelands are the backbone of the livelihood of pastoralists and agro-pastoralists producing annually about 73% of the total feed required for national herds. The forest area is about 22 million ha thus comprising three different classes: federal, state, and community/private forests. Sudan is one of the most seriously affected countries by desertification in Africa. Recent GIS and remote sensing results indicated that between 1958 and 2017 the desert boundary was moved more to the south pushing the country into a historical desertification disaster. Several attempts were made to formulate regulations and legislations to combat soil degradation and desertification. However, desertification in Sudan remains a major environmental threat. Sudan is among the most vulnerable countries in the world to climate change, ranking 175th out of 181 countries. Analyses of rainfall and temperature have demonstrated a high rainfall variability and a clear rise in maximum and minimum temperature. Key climate change impacts include: reduced crops and livestock productivity, reduction in the duration of the growing season and socioeconomic impact such as conflict over resources and migration to urban centres. Sudan has implemented several plans and policies which directly relate to climate change adaptation and development priorities. The focus of these plans and policies is: food security and raising productivity, reducing poverty and enhancing adaptation and resilience to climate change, protecting and developing natural resources, land tenure problems and strengthening governance and institutional capacity. These interventions had limited success in achieving their objectives. The main reasons are: a lack of political stability and fluctuating economic and financial policies as well as weak administrative and implementation capacity of the government institutions. The main lessons learnt are: agricultural-development programmes require increased and more effective public and private partnerships involving the main stakeholders. The low flow of finance to the agricultural sector remains one of the obstacles of agricultural growth. In addition to the poor rural infrastructure, the ongoing conflicts and social unrest in many parts of the country are strongly impacting the performance of the economy and constraining the development plans and policies.
Sudan is situated in Sub-Saharan Africa, covering an area of about 1.9 million km2 and has a population of 43 million. It is regarded as one of the countries in the world where human development is least advanced with a poverty rate of about 46%. Sudan's economy is based on agriculture, which contributes about one-third of the (GDP). Sudan's agriculture has three distinct crop and three distinct livestock production systems. The Crop production systems are: irrigated, traditional and mechanized rain-fed farming. The livestock production systems are: nomadic, transhumant and sedentary systems. The annual cultivated land is around 20 million hectares, more than 85% of which are rain-fed. The livestock population is estimated at 105 million heads concentrated in nomadic and transhumant production systems. Water resources in Sudan are: river Nile and its tributaries, seasonal streams, underground water and surface water. Sources of energy are: biomass; electricity (hydro and fossil fuels) and petroleum products, accounting for about 78,8% and 14%, respectively, of the total energy balance. Sudan has significant renewable energy resources. Particularly solar energy is well distributed all over the country thus having the potential to facilitate the provision of energy services to rural settlements. [.] Sudan has implemented several plans and policies which directly relate to climate change adaptation and development priorities. The focus of these plans and policies is: food security and raising productivity, reducing poverty and enhancing adaptation and resilience to climate change, protecting and developing natural resources, land tenure problems and strengthening governance and institutional capacity. These interventions had limited success in achieving their objectives. The main reasons are: a lack of political stability and fluctuating economic and financial policies as well as weak administrative and implementation capacity of the government institutions. The main lessons learnt are: agricultural-development programmes require increased and more effective public and private partnershipsinvolving the main stakeholders. The low flow of finance to the agricultural sector remains one of the obstacles of agricultural growth. In addition to the poor rural infrastructure, the ongoing conflicts and social unrest in many parts of the country are strongly impacting the performance of the economy and constraining the development plans and policies.
Established behavioural theories have been used to study the impact of perceptions, attitudes and behaviour on tax compliance however the literature have overlooked the relationship between the personality traits of taxpayers as defined by the five‐factor model (FFM) on tax non‐compliance. This study aims to fill this gap by proposing a model using the FFM personality traits that examines the impact of the Big Five personality on tax non‐compliance intentions, and investigates whether the relationships are mediated by tax‐fairness perception. Survey questionnaire were collected from 503 taxpayers working in various professions in Malaysia. Using structural equation modelling to conduct the multivariate analysis, the results were determined using Smart PLS. The results of the analysis indicate that conscientiousness, agreeableness and extraversion are negatively related to tax non‐compliance intention, while neuroticism positively influences tax non‐compliance intention. Moreover, openness to new experience had no significant effect on tax non‐compliance intention. Finally, tax‐fairness perception partially mediates all the relationships except for openness.
This paper synthesizes a set of national case studies conducted in the Sahelian countries during 2019-2020 as a collaboration between national universities and research institutes, and the Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, with contributions from the Agrhymet Regional Centre, Permanent Interstate Committee for Drought Control in the Sahel (CILSS). These case studies provide up-to-date knowledge and critical insights on the nexus of land degradation, climate change and energy in the Sahel. The current synthesis paper highlights their major findings and provides cross-cutting and cross-regional analytical conclusions. First, the synthesis paper explores current trends in the Sahel region on land use and land degradation, energy use and supply, climate change projections and impacts, as well as their interactions and links to agricultural growth, food security, poverty reduction, and peace in the region. Second, technological, socio-economic and policy solutions at the nexus of land, water, energy and climate challenges that enable environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive rural development in the Sahel are discussed, including their interactions and implications for peace and stability in the region. The findings show that such socio-economic solutions as improving access to markets, strengthening social safety nets, increasing investments to transport and energy infrastructures, promoting land tenure security, expanding off-farm employment opportunities can greatly contribute to rural development in the Sahel, particularly by aiding climate change resilience and sustainable land management. Key technological innovations highlighted across the case studies include expanding irrigation and adopting water use efficient irrigation techniques, crop diversification, expanding agricultural mechanization, investing into restoring and rehabilitating degraded lands through reforestation, afforestation and agroforestry practices. The key lessons learnt from ongoing national policy initiatives for sustainable development highlight the importance of active stakeholder consultation and participation in policy formulation, institution of effective policy monitoring and assessment mechanisms, and avoiding of excessive reliance on external sources of funding for the successful implementation of sustainable development policies and programs. Based on these findings, the synthesis paper proposes an agenda for applied research to provide guidance to and accompany promising development strategies in and for the region.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long- term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services. Funding National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit, Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland, Bowel and Cancer Research, Bowel Disease Research Foundation, Association of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, British Association of Surgical Oncology, British Gynaecological Cancer Society, European Society of Coloproctology, Medtronic, Sarcoma UK, The Urology Foundation, Vascular Society for Great Britain and Ireland, and Yorkshire Cancer Research.
Background: Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods: This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index 60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04384926. Findings: Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16-30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77-0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50-0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80-0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54-0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation: Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include protected elective surgical pathways and long-term investment in surge capacity for acute care during public health emergencies to protect elective staff and services.