Australia, the official journal of The Australian Society for Microbiology, continues to provide highly accessible peer-reviewed information that informs readers about useful microbiology information including the latest advances in the broad aspects of microbiology.This success is due to its contributors, reviewers and the oversight of Editorial Board.Microbiology Australia was radically restructured from its predecessor, Australian Microbiologist.In 1995, the first Editorial Board defined the objectives of ASM's new journal, Microbiology Australia, as follows: '(i) to inform, interest and educate; (ii) to encourage member contribution to the journal; (iii) to be broadly based; (iv) feature articles should target members not specialising in that particular area of microbiology; and (v) articles should be pitched at honours students and above'. 1 Those aims are still relevant

CABI has been involved in identifying and combatting emerging fungal disease of plants for over 100 years and in doing so has built a wealth of resources to support farmers and practitioners in reducing crop loss. CABI does not achieve this alone – being an international, inter-governmental, not-for-profit organisation, its 49 Member Countries guide and influence its work, which a network of global partners helps deliver. This work is becoming more relevant in light of increasing threats from climate change, invasive species and pathogens becoming resistant to biocides. Here, we focus on how climate change is influencing disease occurrence and how CABI’s work and resources can help in the battle to manage emerging and spreading diseases. CABI’s culture collection maintains living and active strains of pathogens and biocontrol agents for use as reference materials, its diagnostic advisory service and network of partners helps identify problems and provide solutions and CABI’s information resources underpin it all.

This study explores the opportunities for interlinkages across national planning processes for invasive species management (ISM), national climate change adaptation plans (NAPs), national biodiversity management plans (NBSAPs), and other related policies. Focusing on four countries - Pakistan, Zambia, Kenya, and Ghana - the paper aims to identify policy recommendations for more integrated approaches and to achieve greater efficiency in resource allocation and spending. It finds that there is currently very little integration between these policy areas, and little overlap in implementation systems. It identifies sub-national planning and governance systems as an optimal area for increased harmonization of policy and practice to facilitate locally-led climate adaptation and area-specific responses to ISM issues.

This report reviews the current state of play of climate risk assessment practice and guidance for financial institutions. It assesses the guidance related to disclosures under a number of voluntary and regulatory frameworks (as set out in Annex 1: Summary of climate risk assessment guidance), and in particular sector-specific guidance for agriculture and agribusiness investments. The report assesses the key commonalities and differences of climate risk assessment guidance, and reviews how climate adaptation and resilience are considered and addressed in the guidance in terms of both transition risk and physical risks. It also presents an overview of case studies and guidance on emerging good practices in utilising data generated by smallholder farmers to inform more granular and timely climate risk assessments for family farming initiatives.

food and income from their agricultural activities. This paper uses the three pillars of Technology Justice (access, local innovation, and sustainable use of technologies) to assess the range of agricultural development pathways available. Agroecology emerges as the strongest pathway for leaving no one behind and meeting the triple challenge of productivity, sustainability and poverty eradication, as outlined in the Sustainable Development Goals. This policy briefing presents existing evidence and research in agroecology alongside case studies of successful initiatives with scalable potential, particularly where market systems are at the core of development practices. Considering the barriers to scaling up agroecology, the paper recommends that development actors work together to identify incentives to enable systemic change, through facilitating market systems and private-sector engagement in agroecological production and value chains. Technology Justice Policy Briefing 3