We reviewed published research on natural hazards and community disaster resilience to identify how relationships between people and their experiences of disaster interact to shape possibilities for positive transformative change. Research commonly analyzes processes within and across individual and collective or structural spheres of a social system, but rarely investigates interactions across all three. We present a framework focused on ‘spheres of influence’ to address this. The Framework shows how positive relationships that prioritize restoring shared, meaningful and purposeful identities can lead to expansive and incremental capacity for transformative outcomes for sustainability: a process we liken to the butterfly effect.

Sustainability and disaster resilience frameworks commonly neglect the role of agentive social processes in influencing wider structural transformation for sustainability. We applied relational agency and social practice theory to conceptualize transformative pathways for enhanced sustainability through a review of peer-reviewed literature relating to natural hazards and community disaster resilience. We sought to answer two questions: 1. What are the social practices that influence transformative change for disaster resilience in the context of individual, collective and structural spheres of influence? 2. What are the social influencing processes involved, identified through relational agency? We found that empirical studies tend to focus on individual and collective or structural spheres but rarely offer a relational analysis across all three. Our findings highlight that positive relationships that prioritize restoring shared, meaningful and purposeful identities can act as a resource, which can lead to expansive and incremental transformative outcomes for sustainability: a process we liken to the butterfly effect. We present a Sphere of Influence Framework that highlights socialized practices influenced by relationality, which can be applied as a strategic planning tool to increase capacity for resilience. Future research should explore how socio-political practices (the structural sphere) influence distributed power within collective and individual spheres.

Disasters can generate extraordinary social dynamics. So, how can we optimize these dynamics for enhanced sustainability?

Cities typically treat migration and sustainability as separate policy domains. When migration is highlighted in the context of sustainability in urban destination areas, it is typically understood to have no, or at worst, negative impacts on sustainability. As a result, migration and migrants are commonly left out of sustainability policy and planning. Here, we present emerging evidence to reframe the debate, demonstrating that migration is a force for sustainable development and that migrants can be sustainability actors in urban environments. We point to key action points for cities to better address the migration–sustainability nexus and harness this potential.

For long, migration has been recognized in literature as a force for societal transformations. Yet, mainstream policies dealing with sustainability generally downplay the role of migration. The Sustainable Development Goals, for example, frame migration as a temporary phenomenon needing management rather than as an integral part of sustainable development. As a result, cities generally overlook broader perspectives on migration and transformation in their sustainability strategies. Here, we present key policy insights building on an emerging field of research exploring the migration–sustainability nexus in urban governance. We focus specifically on the city scale, recognizing that cities are situated at the crossroads of migration and sustainability challenges and opportunities, bringing new possibilities to address current sustainability challenges. For example, migrants interact with their destination areas through influencing consumption behavior and resource conservation and migration contributes to sustainable development through the potential of enhancing wellbeing of residents. There is thus an urgent opportunity to address policy gaps to embrace the potentially transformative role of migration for sustainability transitions. We present critical action points to incorporate new insights into policymaking, emphasizing integrated, coordinated and reflexive approaches across all levels of governance.

Migration drives sustainable development. We show how urban governance can seize opportunities for transformation.

The Anthropocene era demands urgent societal changes as we exceed planetary limits. Addressing key sustainability and governance challenges requires inter- and transdisciplinary approaches. Future Earth, a global initiative, brings together leading scholars to advance sustainability science by connecting natural and social sciences and humanities with policymaking. This Special Collection emerged from a 2021 call by Future Earth. Featuring 12 manuscripts, it explores themes like cutting-edge sustainability knowledge, interdisciplinary methods, cultural and developmental issues, and strategies for sustainable transformations. This collection offers a forward-looking view on critical research to guide policy and funding for a sustainable world.

The Anthropocene era necessitates urgent societal changes as we surpass planetary boundaries. Addressing the pressing questions of biogeochemical monitoring, feedback mechanisms, and effective governance systems requires interdisciplinary approaches. Future Earth, a global initiative formed by consolidating networks from major research programs, has been pivotal in advancing sustainability science through such approaches. By bridging natural and social sciences and humanities for enhancing the science–policy interface, Future Earth fosters research and innovation essential for global sustainability transformations. This Special Collection, ‘Charting the Course for the Next Decade of Sustainability Research and Innovation,’ arose from a 2021 call by Future Earth. The Special Collection highlights key scientific questions and future research directions. Contributions span themes such as state-of-the-art sustainability knowledge, transdisciplinary methods, cultural and developmental tensions, multi-actor process efficacy, and integrated knowledge for sustainable transformations. With manuscripts sourced from Future Earth's Global Research Networks and other aligned organizations, this issue underscores a forward-looking perspective on critical interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research needed to support high-level policy and funding directions, ultimately aiming to inform societal decisions for a sustainable and equitable world. We conclude that addressing the sustainability crisis requires a diverse and multi-faceted approach that draws upon the best knowledge of humankind.

Explore urgent societal changes and sustainability science with Future Earth's Collection on sustainability research.

Loss and damage is treated as comprising separate ‘economic’ and ‘non-economic’ dimensions in research and policy. While this has contributed to greater awareness and visibility of non-economic values, our empirical insights show that the two are inextricably linked and that research aimed at informing policy must be better attuned to the multifaceted and cascading nature of loss and damage.

In research and policy, climate-related loss and damage is commonly categorized as either ‘economic’ or ‘non-economic’. One clear benefit of this dichotomy is that it has raised people's awareness of the often under-discussed intangible loss and damage. However, empirical research shows that these two categories are inextricably linked. Indeed, ‘economic’ and ‘non-economic’ loss and damage often overlap, with items that are valued in monetary terms also having non-monetary significance. For example, the loss of a home due to flooding is not only a financial loss but can also have a profound impact on identity and well-being. Moreover, ‘economic’ loss and damage can cascade into ‘non-economic’ loss and damage, and vice versa. For example, when a household incurs economic losses due to drought, this may prevent their children from attending school, which has long-term financial consequences. We argue that rather than dichotomizing loss and damage, recognizing that it is multidimensional, interwoven, and evolving over time will open up new avenues for research that better reflect reality and can therefore better inform policies to address loss and damage.

This comment shows how economic and non-economic loss and damage are linked, which has important policy implications.

Systemic risks such as climate change and pandemics are complex and interconnected. Managing such risks requires effective organisational structures and processes. This publication presents conceptually robust, evidence-based approaches for assessing and managing systemic risks.

Systemic risks originate and evolve in the nexus of tightly coupled dynamic systems, which are a characteristic of modern societies in the Anthropocene. Systemic risk implies the breakdown of a system which provides essential functions to society. Connectivity between systems is a key enabler for systemic risk to manifest through cascading effects. Thus, systemic risks originate and evolve in the nexus of tightly coupled dynamic systems. Cascading effects and the convergence of systemic risks with conventional risks as well as other systemic risks challenge the established modes of risk governance that still rest to a large extent on differentiation and compartmentalisation. Thus, governance of systemic risks requires an integrative approach towards risk governance that combines interdisciplinary risk analysis with iterative, adaptive and inclusive governance procedures. By drawing on the case studies of the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, this paper proposes an innovative risk governance framework for systemic risks based on the integration of systems analysis and a governance procedure with the salient features of reflection, iteration, inclusion, transparency and accountability.

Systemic risks highlight the interconnected nature of our contemporary societies which calls for tailored responses.

Substantive carbon is sequestered in mangrove, saltmarsh, seagrass, and other marine ecosystems. Blue carbon is considered to offer potential for enhanced carbon sequestration. Bringing blue carbon to market, however, presents risks to local people and communities with livelihood and other connections to these environments. While efforts are forged to establish payments for ecosystem services, blue carbon presents critical challenges to social and environmental justice. In this paper, we synthesize insights from relevant literature and provide direction for future research on the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon.

Blue carbon has been proposed as a nature-based solution to mitigate climate change and is the focus of concerted scientific and policy attention. The rush to operationalize blue carbon however, presents significant risks for social and environmental justice where it intersects with inequality and marginalization. To date, the reasonable and just consequences of the social transformation that will accompany blue carbon are under-examined. We undertake a structured literature review of research published over the past decade that addresses the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon, and chart four themes: (1) conceptual issues, (2) governance issues; (3) emergent lessons (from practice); and (4) future research directions that address: social acceptability; processes to address social justice including engagement, participation, and benefit sharing; information and data deficits; and institutional governance reform. If the stated opportunities are to be fully realized, we argue the social and cultural dimensions of blue carbon, and its intersections with social justice, must be attended to explicitly and clarified.

Just transitions to climate change mean attending to people, culture, and livelihoods as blue carbon is operationalized.

To address increasingly pressing social–environmental challenges, the transformative strand of sustainability science seeks to move beyond a descriptive-analytical stance in order to explore and contribute to the implementation of radical alternatives to dominant and unsustainable paradigms, norms, and values. However, in many cases, academia is not currently structured to support and reward inter-/trans-disciplinary and transformative endeavors. This paper introduces a theory of change for the Future Earth Pathways Initiative, and similar initiatives, to help leverage the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in transformative research.

The increasing body of descriptive-analytical knowledge produced by sustainability science over the last two decades has largely failed to trigger the transformation of policies, norms, and behaviors it was aiming to inform. The emergent transformative strand of sustainability science is a proactive alternative approach seeking to play an active role in processes of societal change by developing knowledge about options, solutions, and pathways, and by participating in their implementation. In principle, scientists can enhance their contribution to more sustainable futures by engaging in transformative research. However, a lack of skills and competencies, relatively unmatured transformative methods and concepts, and an institutional landscape still geared toward disciplinary and descriptive-analytical research, still hinders the sustainability science community from engaging more widely in transformative research. In this paper, the Future Earth Pathways Initiative introduces a theory of change (ToC) for increasing the capacity of sustainability scientists to engage in this type of research. This ToC ultimately aims to build a growing community of practitioners engaged in transformative research, to advance concepts, methods, and paradigms to foster ‘fit-for-purpose transformative research’, and to shape institutions to nurture transformative research-friendly contexts.

What would a theory of change for leveraging the transformative capacity of sustainability science look like?

Agricultural research is vital for sustainable food production, amid changing challenges. To address these challenges effectively and achieve sustainable food systems, researchers and funding bodies have to prioritize research efforts. We conducted horizon scanning to determine how rice systems might change by 2050 and to identify key research gaps. The study involved 101 rice experts from 31 countries who rated the research gaps based on novelty and relevance. The top 25 research gaps encompass sustainability, agricultural development, rice crop science (including genetics, breeding, and physiology), and policies. Addressing these research gaps will contribute toward the sustainability of rice systems.

Agricultural research and development (AgR&D) is crucial for increasing productivity while preserving natural capital and ensuring sustainable food security. Traditional AgR&D approaches along monodisciplinary lines often have unintended consequences and trade-offs, which can be avoided through integrated and interdisciplinary approaches. One such approach is horizon scanning. We conducted a horizon-scanning activity to identify research gaps to be prioritized for sustainable rice systems by 2050. The horizon scan involved a global and diverse panel of rice experts (101 from 31 countries). The panel responded to questionnaires on the drivers, projections, and research needs for rice AgR&D. Afterward, research gaps were rated on their relevance and novelty to sustainable rice systems. We identified the top 25 research gaps under four themes: sustainability interactions, agricultural development, genetics, breeding and crop physiology, and governance and policies. These gaps highlight research that needs to be prioritized to achieve sustainable rice systems that enhance resilience, conserve biodiversity, and promote socio-economic well-being.

Rice experts select top rice research gaps for achieving sustainable rice systems by 2050.

Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. By recognizing the impact of continuous economic growth on environmental problems, the concept of degrowth proposes a practical approach to achieving sustainability. It urges experts in sustainability to think carefully about the impacts of economic growth, echoing recent scientific findings that question the need for endless growth. Therefore, this article highlights the potential of degrowth as a transformative approach that can expand capacities necessary for socio-ecological sustainability.

This article highlights the potential of degrowth as a transformative approach that can expand capacities necessary for socio-ecological sustainability. By addressing economic growth as a fundamental driver of unsustainability, degrowth offers a concrete pathway toward achieving sustainable outcomes. It calls for sustainability scientists to explicitly consider the role of economic growth, aligning with recent scientific assessments that support a critical stance on growth. Although degrowth and sustainability share common goals such as respecting biocapacity and equitable distribution of ecological budgets, degrowth approaches differ by placing emphasis on national and local solutions and exploring aspects such as technology, time, work, commodity, and property. Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. Growth-critical perspectives such as degrowth and post-growth have the potential to propel sustainability discourses into new, more impactful realms of development.

Engaging with economic questions is crucial for sustainability science to maintain its transformative potential. Degrowth proposes a practical approach for achieving sustainability.

In 2015, the United Nations articulated the ambition to move toward a prosperous, socially inclusive, and environmentally sustainable future for all by adopting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). However, little is known about the pathways that could lead to their concurrent achievement. We provide an overview of the current literature on quantitative pathways toward the SDGs, indicate the commonly used methods and indicators, and identify the most comprehensive pathways that have been published to date. Our results indicate that there is a need for more scenarios toward the full set of SDGs, using a wider range of underlying narratives.

Quantitative goal-seeking scenario studies could help to explore the needed systems' transformations to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development by identifying enabling conditions and accounting for the synergies and trade-offs between the SDGs. Given that the SDGs were adopted some time ago, here, we review the existing global scenario literature to determine what it can offer in this context. We found only a few scenarios that address a large set of SDGs, while many more deal with specific clusters of 2–6 SDGs. We identified the most frequent clusters and compared the results of the most comprehensive sustainable development scenarios. The latter is complicated because of the diversity of methods, indicators, and assumptions used. Therefore, we suggest that an effort is needed to develop a wider set of scenarios that would achieve multiple SDGs, using a more standardized framework of targets and indicators.

This study reviews the current global pathways toward the SDGs and shows the need for a broader set of SDG scenarios.

Information on social aspects of climate change intervention, such as behavioral choices and public acceptance, are often not included in global climate models. As a result, they have been critiqued for not adequately reflecting ‘real world’ conditions. At the same time, these models are important and influential policy tools. To improve these models, calls are being made for more interaction – or integration – between the social science and modelling research communities. Yet, it remains unclear how to achieve this. Responding to this gap, we explore what kind of integration is currently taking place, how, and opportunities for further development.

The importance of social drivers of climate change interventions, or social aspects, is currently underrepresented in computational modelling projections. These parameters are largely excluded from estimates of technical mitigation potential, feasibility, and tools like integrated assessment models (IAMs) and other large-scale models that influence the development of climate policies and notable bodies like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This paper contributes to calls being made within the research community to address this gap and strengthen linkages between modelling practices and social science insights. Using nature-based solutions (NbS) as a framing, we present the results of a critical literature review and interviews with multidisciplinary experts reflecting on the current state of integration around IAMs and opportunities to better capture social aspects within large-scale modelling processes. Our findings confirm the need to incorporate social aspects in IAMs, but highlight that how this happens in practice may depend on context, project objectives, or pragmatic choices rather than conceptual notions about what ‘good’ integration is. Nevertheless, some integration strategies are better than others, and concerns about data limitations and low capacity of the IAM community for engaging in integration can be overcome with sufficient support and complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Integrating social aspects in large-scale models requires complementary efforts from the broader research community.

Scenarios compatible with the Paris agreement's temperature goal of 1.5 °C involve carbon dioxide removal measures – measures that actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere – on a massive scale. Such large-scale implementations raise significant ethical problems. Van Vuuren et al. (2018), as well as the current IPCC scenarios, show that reduction in energy and or food demand could reduce the need for such activities. There is some reluctance to discuss such societal changes. However, we argue that policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily ethically problematic. Therefore, they should be discussed alongside techno-optimistic approaches in any kind of discussions about how to respond to climate change.

The 1.5 °C goal has given impetus to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) measures, such as bioenergy combined with carbon capture and storage, or afforestation. However, land-based CDR options compete with food production and biodiversity protection. Van Vuuren et al. (2018) looked at alternative pathways including lifestyle changes, low-population projections, or non-CO2 greenhouse gas mitigation, to reach the 1.5 °C temperature objective. Underlined by the recently published IPCC AR6 WGIII report, they show that demand-side management measures are likely to reduce the need for CDR. Yet, policy measures entailed in these scenarios could be associated with ethical problems themselves. In this paper, we therefore investigate ethical implications of four alternative pathways as proposed by Van Vuuren et al. (2018). We find that emission reduction options such as lifestyle changes and reducing population, which are typically perceived as ethically problematic, might be less so on further inspection. In contrast, options associated with less societal transformation and more techno-optimistic approaches turn out to be in need of further scrutiny. The vast majority of emission reduction options considered are not intrinsically ethically problematic; rather everything rests on the precise implementation. Explicitly addressing ethical considerations when developing, advancing, and using integrated assessment scenarios could reignite debates about previously overlooked topics and thereby support necessary societal discourse.

Policy measures enabling societal changes are not necessarily as ethically problematic as commonly presumed and reduce the need for large-scale CDR.

Climate stabilization requires scaling-up technologies to capture and store carbon. Carbon removal could be very profitable, and some of the agents best placed to benefit are ‘carbon majors’, i.e. fossil fuel companies. We argue that in ordinary circumstances only agents without significant historical climate responsibilities would be entitled to the full benefits from carbon removal. Under non-ideal conditions, carbon majors might be entitled to benefit, provided that no other agent could remove similar quantities of carbon at similar costs. This burden of proof is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities.

Climate stabilization requires scaling up technologies to capture and store carbon. Some of the agents best placed to profit from carbon removal are ‘carbon majors’, especially fossil fuel companies. Yet incentivizing carbon majors to undertake carbon removal poses an ethical dilemma: carbon majors have made significant historical contributions to climate change and have significantly benefitted from such contributions without being made to compensate for resulting climate harm. This is why it seems unfair to reward them with additional economic benefits. However, carbon majors possess the technological skills and infrastructure to upscale carbon removal efficiently. We argue that in ordinary circumstances, only agents without significant climate responsibilities would be morally entitled to fully benefit from carbon removal. Yet under non-ideal conditions, it might be permissible to reward carbon majors if no other agent were capable of removing as much carbon at similar costs and on similar timeframes. We believe this argument faces an imposing burden of proof that is only likely to be met in countries with poor governance capacities. In more favorable circumstances, including those of most OECD countries, rewarding carbon majors without having them pay for their historical climate responsibilities remains impermissible.

Rewarding carbon majors to undertake carbon dioxide removal is unjust due to their historical climate responsibilities. Where possible, governments should empower other agents to remove CO2.

There is increasing evidence of extreme events and irreversible damage occurring faster than expected. Despite inescapable evidence of intersecting crises facing the Earth system and numerous efforts and agreements, global society is not on track to achieve its sustainability objectives. The 10 ‘Must Haves’ initiative aims to identify the pathways of accelerated systemic transformations needed across the globe toward a sustainable and just future where all can thrive on a healthy planet. In this Intelligence Briefing, the authors lay out the rationale for the project, the proposed targets, and set the stage for forthcoming work on action.

This Intelligence Briefing recognizes the urgent need for global-scale transformations to overcome the crises facing humanity. The ‘10 Must Haves Initiative’, conceptualized by The Earth League and the participants of the Global Futures Conference, aims to provide a framework for accelerated transformations to bridge the gap between pledges and action related to global challenges to stay within planetary boundaries and ensure a safe and just future for all. Each ‘Must Have’ represents targets within which a forthcoming report outlines the specific ‘must-do’ actions, relevant actors and considerations for successful implementation. The authors put forth that we must have a limit of global warming as close to 1.5°C as possible by 2050; an immediate halt and reversal of the loss of nature's functions and diversity; just economies that operate within planetary boundaries; equitable access to resources needed for human well-being; governance transformations to stay within planetary boundaries; healthy, safe, and secure food for the global population; the reconnection of human well-being to planetary health; an ethical digital world providing for human security and, a resilient global society ready to respond to planetary crises.

10 ‘Must Haves’ toward thriving future 4 all: global contingency plan toward transformation of unsustainable trajectory.

Improving the flow of information between governments and local communities is paramount to achieving effective climate change mitigation and adaptation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation and improve community-based climate action. The pathways can be summarized as visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. These pathways contribute to improving governance by consolidating in governments the practice of soliciting and incorporating community participation while simultaneously giving communities the tools and knowledge needed to become active contributors to climate change adaptation and mitigation measures.

Community participation is considered a key component in the design of responses to climate change. Substantial engagement of local communities is required to ensure information flow between governments and communities, but also because local communities are the primary sites of adaptation action. However, frontline communities are often excluded from decision-making and implementation processes due to political choices or failures to identify ways to make participatory frameworks more inclusive. Climate action requires the active engagement of communities in making consequential decisions, or what we term deepened participation. We propose five pathways to deepen participation: visualization, simulations to practice decision-making, participatory budgeting and planning, environmental civic service, and education and curriculum development. The five pathways identify strategies that can be incorporated into existing organizational and institutional frameworks or used to create new ones. Shortcomings related to each strategy are identified. Reflection by communities and governments is encouraged as they choose which participatory technique(s) to adopt.

Climate action requires the active engagement of communities. Learn five pathways to get started deepening participation.

Changes in language used in long term climate policy can undermine their credibility and discourage climate action. Previous IPCC reports have promoted an idea of reaching ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) emissions by 2050 in order to limit global warming to 1.5 °C. In the latest IPCC Report, this language has been changed.

To understand the impact of this change, we survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in long term policy goals. We find a low tolerance for a change and, indeed, there is substantial finance, business and political effort behind the idea of reaching GNZ by 2050.

This suggests that GNZ by 2050 will remain central to climate action.

Consistency in language in long term policy goals is central to building a (political) constituency in support of the Paris Agreement. Changes in language can undermine policy credibility, and stall effective mitigation action.

Recent changes in IPCC language to describe ‘global net zero’ (GNZ) as being reached in the ‘early or mid 2050s’ (AR6 WG1) could risk undermining the substantial cultural, political and financial momentum that has developed behind the interpretation – first developed by the IPCC SR 1.5 °C Report – that GNZ must be reached by 2050.

We survey COP 26 participants to test their willingness to accept a shift in policy goals and find a strong preference for a ‘stable’ long term policy target, widely interpreted as reaching ‘GNZ by 2050’, and a rejection of flexibility in long term policy targets, even as new scientific information becomes available.

‘GNZ by 2050’ is no longer a science based target, but has transitioned to a cultural and political metaphor actively used by stakeholders to guide their climate decision making. This makes ‘GNZ by 2050’ no less valid than the original scientific concept. This may stimulate further ‘political calibration’ or between the policy and modelling communities.

Sig. momentum is behind global net zero by 2050.Will changes in IPCC mitigation language de-rail global climate action?

A widely held belief is that once the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, especially by affluent populations, the necessary support for a politics prioritising ambitious emissions reductions will follow. But consideration of the indirect socioeconomic impacts of warming suggests this could be false hope.

There is some evidence to support the common intuition that, as the direct impacts of warming intensify – particularly in the affluent Global North – a politics ambitious enough to confront the climate emergency may finally find support. However, it seems at least equally likely that the opposite trend will prevail. This proposition can be understood by considering various indirect impacts of warming, including the widening of socioeconomic inequalities (within and between countries), increases in migration (intra- and inter-nationally) and heightened risk of conflict (from violence and war through to hate speech and crime). Compiling these impacts reveals a considerable and highly inconvenient overlap with key drivers of the authoritarian populism that has proliferated in the 21st century. It highlights the risk of a socio-ecological feedback loop where the consequences of warming create a political environment entirely at odds with that required to reduce emissions. Such a future is, of course, far from inevitable. Nonetheless, the risks highlight the urgent need to find public support for combined solutions to climate change and inequality, which go well beyond the status-quo. This is necessary not only for reasons of economic and climate justice, but in order to mitigate political barriers to carbon mitigation itself.

As the impacts of warming are experienced more directly and substantially, we may vote for precisely the wrong people.

We summarize what we assess as the past year's most important findings within climate change research: limits to adaptation, vulnerability hotspots, new threats coming from the climate–health nexus, climate (im)mobility and security, sustainable practices for land use and finance, losses and damages, inclusive societal climate decisions and ways to overcome structural barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

We synthesize 10 topics within climate research where there have been significant advances or emerging scientific consensus since January 2021. The selection of these insights was based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings concern: (1) new aspects of soft and hard limits to adaptation; (2) the emergence of regional vulnerability hotspots from climate impacts and human vulnerability; (3) new threats on the climate–health horizon – some involving plants and animals; (4) climate (im)mobility and the need for anticipatory action; (5) security and climate; (6) sustainable land management as a prerequisite to land-based solutions; (7) sustainable finance practices in the private sector and the need for political guidance; (8) the urgent planetary imperative for addressing losses and damages; (9) inclusive societal choices for climate-resilient development and (10) how to overcome barriers to accelerate mitigation and limit global warming to below 2°C.

Science has evidence on barriers to mitigation and how to overcome them to avoid limits to adaptation across multiple fields.

Many conservation initiatives call for ‘transformative change’ to counter biodiversity loss, climate change, and injustice. The term connotes fundamental, broad, and durable changes to human relationships with nature. However, if oversimplified or overcomplicated, or not focused enough on power and the political action necessary for change, associated initiatives can perpetuate or exacerbate existing crises. This article aims to help practitioners deliberately catalyze and steer transformation processes. It provides a theoretically and practically grounded definition of ‘transformative conservation’, along with six strategic, interlocking recommendations. These cover systems pedagogy, political mobilization, inner transformation, as well as planning, action, and continual adjustment.

Calls for ‘transformative change’ point to the fundamental reorganization necessary for global conservation initiatives to stem ecological catastrophe. However, the concept risks being oversimplified or overcomplicated, and focusing too little on power and the political action necessary for change. Accordingly, its intersection with contemporary biodiversity and climate change mitigation initiatives needs explicit deliberation and clarification. This article advances the praxis of ‘transformative conservation’ as both (1) a desired process that rethinks the relationships between individuals, society, and nature, and restructures systems accordingly, and (2) a desired outcome that conserves biodiversity while justly transitioning to net zero emission economies and securing the sustainable and regenerative use of natural resources. It first reviews criticisms of area-based conservation targets, natural climate solutions, and nature-based solutions that are framed as transformative, including issues of ecological integrity, livelihoods, gender, equity, growth, power, participation, knowledge, and governance. It then substantiates six strategic recommendations designed to help practitioners deliberately steer transformation processes. These include taking a systems approach; partnering with political movements to achieve equitable and just transformation; linking societal with personal (‘inner’) transformation; updating how we plan; facilitating shifts from diagnosis and planning to action; and improving our ability to adjust to transformation as it occurs.

Curious about stemming the global biodiversity and climate crises? Browse this article on transformative conservation!