Environment strategy: transformative changes for sustainability

2. Global policy and science-policy discourse

Alarm bells are ringing. Scientific assessments and current impacts are heightening calls for Transformative Change, rather than incremental shifts in academic and policy circles. The implications for life on Earth and multi-species justice are serious:

• the ‘severity of the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and escalating pollution is increasingly registering beyond UN circles (UNDP, 2024, p31). New multilateral agreements present new commitments, such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework’s commitments on removing $500 billion of environmental unfriendly subsidies, and private commitments and investments are increasing, but there is still accelerating biodiversity loss, ecosystem degradation and overshooting of tipping points and persistent new records for annual high temperatures (UNDP, 2024).
• The ‘Great Acceleration’ involves an unprecedented pace and impact of human-induced changes, which according to scientists such as Steffen et al, (2007) began in the second half of the 20^th century.
• Critical Earth system processes are being disrupted by unsustainable resource extraction and consumption of dominant socio-economic systems, beyond key thresholds which could lead to abrupt and irreversible environmental changes, negatively impacting the stability of the planet and its ability to support human civilisations (Rockström et al, 2009; Rockström et al 2023).
• Nine planetary boundaries define a safe operating space for humanity (Steffen et al, 2015) with climate change and biosphere integrity having particular importance; if crossed these can tip Earth systems into a new state.
• Earth system justice means living in a just manner within boundaries. Planetary biophysical boundaries are not inherently just and should be adjusted to reduce harm and increase access, challenging inequality for safe and just futures for people, other species and the planet (Gupta et al, 2023).
• Six of the nine planetary boundaries have been crossed (Richardson et al, 2023). Wealth – material or otherwise (spiritual, cultural, health-related) – is dependent on all life flourishing on planet earth. Damage to life and rising inequalities are the result of accumulation driven by dominant notions of progress and historical and continuing patterns of extraction and over-consumption (Moore, 2015; Jackson, 2009; Raworth, 2017).
• The Global Tipping Points report (2023), a recent international assessment, identifies 26 tipping points, such as melting ice sheets and mass die-offs of tropical coral reefs, that are being driven by human activity. Five of these are already at risk of being crossed and exceeding one can trigger others in a cascading effect via globalised socio-economic systems. The domino effect is anticipated to be one of accelerating and unmanageable change in planetary life-support systems.
• At higher levels, there are also observations of growing societal disturbances. The Human Development Report (2021-22) finds three strands (volatile, interacting) of an ‘uncertainty complex’ never seen before in human history, including destabilizing planetary pressures and inequalities of the Anthropocene, the pursuit of sweeping societal transformations to ease those pressures, the widespread and intensifying polarization (e.g. democratic backsliding, alienation from political systems).
• Public concern is growing in the UK: ‘In October 2021, just ahead of the COP26 UN Climate conference in Glasgow, three-quarters (75%) of adults in Great Britain said they were worried about the impact of climate change’ and ‘Just over two-fifths (43%) reported feeling anxious about the future of the environment more widely’^[3], according to the Office for National Statistics’ (ONS) Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN). In Scotland, the public ranked climate change as the third most important issue after the economy and health and social care in 2022. ^[4]

There is limited consensus on definitions or agreement on how to achieve transformative change in practice. Intensifying power inequalities mean that achieving change is challenging. Even the notion that transformative change can be intentionally managed is sometimes questioned, given the complex, emergent nature of adaptive systems. Definitions of transformative change are evolving (Abson et al, 2017), with increasing attention to the concept in global policy reports of international agencies and inter-governmental science-policy assessments. While societal transformations are continually ongoing, planned efforts described in such policy and inter-governmental assessments point to transformative change going beyond incremental interventions. They commonly seek to set out transformation pathways, e.g. in systems defined as energy, food, land, climate change, and conservation.

Many definitions of transformative change encompass some normative sustainability values and goals. For example, GEO-6 refers to transformations for the achievement of ‘positive development results.’ Similarly, the Global Sustainable Development Report or GSDR (2023) refers to resilience, security and well-being in relation to transformative change. IPBES definitions focus on biodiversity conservation and nature’s contribution to people. However, the Climate Investment Fund (CIF), (2021) defines transformative change as a deep change in a system, without normative commitments or judgements, drawing on dynamic systems theory. GSDR focuses on systems such as food and energy.

Definitions among high level panels and inter-governmental science-policy platforms vary. They range from those more oriented to scientific-technical and market visions (e.g. High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition), to those set out by the IPCC and IPBES. Some intergovernmental science-policy assessments envision much deeper shifts in values and worldviews.

• For example, the High Level Panel of Experts for Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE 2019) provides a more conventional vision based upon scientific-technical solutions and market values and imperatives. It draws attention to transition pathways that combine technical interventions, investments, enabling policies and instruments – involving a variety of actors at different scales, recognising human rights as the basis for ensuring sustainable food systems and transdisciplinary science, and acknowledges diverging perspectives on how to achieve food system transformations, whilst recognising inclusive roles for civil society and the private sector.
• In contrast, the IPBES Values Assessment (IPBES, 2022), focusing upon biodiversity, emphasises values, goal and paradigm shifts as being fundamental to sustainability transformation.^[5] IPCC (2022a) recognised the need for deep change across systems and beyond technological change, foregrounding social and economic factors as well to achieve rapid change at scale.
• Political entities such as the European Commission and the UN Agency on Food and Agriculture (FAO) promote transformative change actions on climate, biodiversity and equity, also recognising these drivers and emphasising the pathways of strategic dialogue, research and policy as instruments of change, alongside changes in extraction, production, consumption, trade and behaviour patterns^[6].

A global private sector body, the World Business Council on Sustainable Development (WBCSD), in its Vision 2050: Time to Transform also proffers notions of transformation. WBCSD uses systems thinking, noting nine transformation pathways or ‘actionable routes for companies to take’ covering energy, transportation and mobility, living spaces, products and materials, financial products and services, connectivity, health and wellbeing, water and sanitation and food. Aligned with the SDGs and Paris Agreement targets, it includes ten action areas for the next decade.^[7] WBCSD argue that this provides a clear vision and roadmap and represents a means to reinvent capitalism. From a critical social science perspective, this is an example of techno-science perspective which does not address the underlying causes of over-consumption and the need for a more rigorous consumption governance regime which reduces the volume of materials and energy resources consumed and at the same time sustains human well-being (Lorek and Fuchs, 2013; Fuchs and Lorek, 2005).

There is an ongoing IPBES assessment focuses specifically on Transformative Change. This is due to be published at the end of 2024. In relation to biodiversity, this thematic assessment has the potential to advance thinking and international engagement on transformative change.