Explore the vast range of titles available.

Humanity is on a deeply unsustainable trajectory. We are exceeding planetary boundaries and unlikely to meet many international sustainable development goals and global environmental targets. Until recently, there was no broadly accepted framework of interventions that could ignite the transformations needed to achieve these desired targets and goals. As a component of the IPBES Global Assessment, we conducted an iterative expert deliberation process with an extensive review of scenarios and pathways to sustainability, including the broader literature on indirect drivers, social change and sustainability transformation. We asked, what are the most important elements of pathways to sustainability? Applying a social–ecological systems lens, we identified eight priority points for intervention (leverage points) and five overarching strategic actions and priority interventions (levers), which appear to be key to societal transformation. The eight leverage points are: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. The five intertwined levers can be applied across the eight leverage points and more broadly. These include: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre‐emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision‐making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. The levers and leverage points are all non‐substitutable, and each enables others, likely leading to synergistic benefits. Transformative change towards sustainable pathways requires more than a simple scaling‐up of sustainability initiatives—it entails addressing these levers and leverage points to change the fabric of legal, political, economic and other social systems. These levers and leverage points build upon those approved within the Global Assessment's Summary for Policymakers, with the aim of enabling leaders in government, business, civil society and academia to spark transformative changes towards a more just and sustainable world. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article. A free Plain Language Summary can be found within the Supporting Information of this article.

Reducing the hidden costs (negative externalities) in Kenya’s green bean value chain could ensure a more environmentally sustainable, human health protecting and socially equitable value chain. However, existing research has not addressed which strategies farmers, packhouses and traders are willing to adopt to reduce (internalise) environmental, health and social externalities in this value chain. This study was conducted to identify internalisation options for the externalities in Kenya’s value chain and explore stakeholders’ willingness to adopt these options. Data were collected through a literature review and focus group discussions and analysed using a multi-criteria decision analysis. Stakeholders were willing to adopt or accept 60 out of 78 identified internalisation options. Farmers, packhouse operators and traders significantly preferred financial incentives over mandatory and voluntary internalisation measures. They were unwilling to adopt many of the voluntary options, especially those involving substantial initial costs. Stakeholders are legally obligated to comply with mandatory measures, such as fees, fines, permits, standards and taxes. Their acceptance of mandatory measures indicated a fear of severe repercussions for non-compliance. Internalising negative externalities requires strategies that align stakeholder interests (profit maximisation at minimum cost) with government enforcement and monitoring. These strategies should include a combination of financial incentives, mandatory strategies and voluntary measures. The Kenyan government must strengthen the capacity of public regulatory agencies to monitor and penalise stakeholders who generate negative externalities. The findings can guide stakeholders and policymakers in developing and implementing strategies for encouraging and enforcing accountability, transparency and responsibility for externalities.

The System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA) remains neutral when it comes to the weak and strong sustainability worldviews. However, although its manuals do not contain any references to these concepts, it can support both through physical and monetary accounting. Given that strong sustainability is better suited to monitor environmental sustainability, we provide insights into how SEEA can contribute to promote the use of strong sustainability indicators. From a strong sustainability perspective, environmental sustainability requires identifying elements of natural capital to be preserved (critical natural capital) and at the level at which they should be preserved (reference values). SEEA and its manuals do not explicitly define the first element, but the concept of 'reference values' is implicitly embedded with the 'ecosystem condition accounts' introduced in the Ecosystem Accounting (EA) manual. As such, EA is the most relevant element of the SEEA in terms of advancing strong sustainability accounting. Given that ecosystem condition accounting is still in its early stages and that ecosystem condition is currently challenging to determine, three actions are proposed to better integrate strong sustainability in SEEA. First, the next revision of the SEEA Central Framework should be more explicit in how SEEA supports weak and strong sustainability. It should also consider how SEEA is linked to the wider indicator landscape (including the Sustainable Development Goals and the Global Biodiversity Framework). Second, ecosystem condition accounting needs to be further developed, as the more abundant extent accounts cannot capture the quality of ecosystems. Third, ecosystem condition accounting could build on other strong sustainability indicator initiatives such as Planetary Boundaries or the Environmental Sustainability Gap framework that have consistently integrated reference values in the accounting practices. These actions would provide additional means to interpret environmental sustainability beyond the direction of progress as is often the case.

Future scenarios and pathways of potential development trajectories are powerful tools to assist with decision-making to address many sustainability challenges. Such scenarios play a major role in global environmental assessments (GEAs). Currently, however, scenarios in GEAs are mostly developed at the global level by experts and researchers, and locally imagined, bottom-up scenarios do not play a role in such assessments. In this paper, we argue that addressing future sustainability challenges for achieving more equitable development in GEAs requires a more explicit role for bottom-up inspired futures. To this end, this paper employs an innovative global assessment framework for exploring alternative futures that are grounded in local realities and existing practical actions, and that can be appropriately scaled to the required decision-making level. This framework was applied in the context of the UN’s Global Environment Outlook 6, a major example of a GEA. We developed novel methods for synthesizing insights from a wide range of local practices and perspectives into global futures. We collected information from crowdsourcing platforms, outcomes of participatory workshops in different regions of the world, and an assessment of reported regional outlooks. We analysed these according to a framework also used by an integrated assessment model in the same GEA. We conclude that bottom-up approaches to identify and assess transformative solutions that envision future pathways towards greater sustainability significantly strengthen current GEA scenario-development approaches. They provide decision makers with required actionable information based on tangible synergistic solutions that have been tested on the ground. This work has revealed that there are significant opportunities for the integration of bottom-up knowledge and insights into GEAs, to make such assessments more salient and valuable to decision makers.

Large-scale land acquisitions in Africa are increasing, reported often as the transfers of land for food and biofuel crop production. Only reporting agricultural acquisitions underplays potential impacts of other forms of acquisitions like tourism and conservation, which are new engines for economic growth in Southern Africa. While this shift has complex social-ecological implications, there is limited evidence of the multiple ways that land acquisitions unfold in wetland ecosystems, and implications for people and nature. This study aims to investigate local perceptions of implications of land and water acquisitions on local livelihoods in the Okavango Delta, Botswana, using in-depth interviews with 116 local respondents in Etsha 6, Khwai and Tubu villages. Findings revealed that the primary drivers of land acquisitions in the Okavango Delta were tourism and subsistence agriculture, and a new and unique land exchange (we termed land borrowing) was prevalent in Tubu, involving the borrowing of farmland in flood recessions between locals. Concessions, borrowings, and rentals were key perceived land acquisition types. Both positive and negative impacts of land acquisitions on livelihoods surfaced. The diversity of cultural grouping influenced locals’ intricate connection with riparian waters and affected how land was exchanged and governed. The disparities in benefits from land resources have negative implications for equitable resource distribution and natural resource governance, in policy and practice. This research highlights the importance of an expanded view of acquisitions and associated impacts with closer attention to power dynamics which can facilitate more nuanced implementation of targets of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity framework.

Enhancing the governance of social-ecological systems for more equitable and sustainable development is hindered by inadequate knowledge about how different social groups and communities rely on natural resources. We used openly accessible national survey data to develop a metric of overall dependence on natural resources. These data contain information about households' sources of water, energy, building materials and food. We used these data in combination with Bayesian learning to model observed patterns of dependence using demographic variables that included: gender of household head, household size, income, house ownership, formality status of settlement, population density, and in-migration rate to the area. We show that a small number of factors-in particular population density and informality of settlements-can explain a significant amount of the observed variation with regards to the use of natural resources. Subsequently, we test the validity of these predictions using alternative, open access data in the eThekwini and Cape Town metropolitan areas of South Africa. We discuss the advantages of using a selection of predictors which could be supplied through remotely sensed and open access data, in terms of opportunities and challenges to produce meaningful results in data-poor areas. With data availability being a common limiting factor in modelling and monitoring exercises, access to inexpensive, up-to-date and free to use data can significantly improve how we monitor progress towards sustainability targets. A small selection of openly accessible demographic variables can predict household's dependence on local natural resources.

Underpinned by systemic thinking, social-ecological systems (SES) research has emerged as a critical field for addressing the challenges of the Anthropocene, marked by a cross-scale focus, inter- and transdisciplinary approaches, and a strong emphasis on place-based work. Thanks to the efforts of many networks and institutes, the field has advanced new theoretical and methodological approaches, fostered dedicated journals, and spurred educational programs. It has also significantly influenced sustainability initiatives and policy from local to global scales, and has richly informed place-based efforts. Despite this progress, SES research faces persistent challenges, including conceptual and methodological fragmentation, difficulty in scaling localized insights to global frameworks (and vice versa), and capturing cross-scale connections and processes while retaining contextual relevance. Inclusivity also remains a critical issue, with regional, Indigenous, and local contributions often underrepresented, as there is still a reliance on short-term, inequitably distributed grant funding for much of the research in the field. This paper introduces the Society for Social-Ecological Systems (SocSES), a global platform designed to build on and connect to the rich legacy of SES networks. SocSES aims to advance and support SES–based research, practice, and action toward a just and sustainable future. We outline how SocSES will provide a home for SES institutes, networks, researchers, and practitioners working at the science-practice-policy interface to connect and amplify existing efforts through thematic streams, regional hubs, an institutional hub, an early-career professionals hub, and synthesis groups. The society will provide a stable infrastructure to foster interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary collaboration, enhance the generalizability and policy relevance of SES research, bolster education, research, and knowledge co-production, and support the next generation of SES professionals. By addressing the persistent challenges facing the field and fostering transformative spaces and communities for innovation and action, SocSES aspires to support and leverage SES knowledge as a cornerstone of global sustainability science.In line with the society’s commitment to linguistic diversity and equitable access, this abstract has been translated into 12 languages by authors of this paper and additional contributors. These translations are available in Appendix 2 and at https://socses.org/about/paper.

Scenario analyses have been used in multiple science-policy assessments to better understand complex plausible futures. Scenario archetype approaches are based on the fact that many future scenarios have similar underlying storylines, assumptions, and trends in drivers of change, which allows for grouping of scenarios into typologies, or archetypes, facilitating comparisons between a large range of studies. The use of scenario archetypes in environmental assessments foregrounds important policy questions and can be used to codesign interventions tackling future sustainability issues. Recently, scenario archetypes were used in four regional assessments and one ongoing global assessment within the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The aim of these assessments was to provide decision makers with policy-relevant knowledge about the state of biodiversity, ecosystems, and the contributions they provide to people. This paper reflects on the usefulness of the scenario archetype approach within science-policy processes, drawing on the experience from the IPBES assessments. Using a thematic analysis of (a) survey data collected from experts involved in the archetype analyses across IPBES assessments, (b) notes from IPBES workshops, and (c) regional assessment chapter texts, we synthesize the benefits, challenges, and frontiers of applying the scenario archetype approach in a science-policy process. Scenario archetypes were perceived to allow syntheses of large amounts of information for scientific, practice-, and policy-related purposes, streamline key messages from multiple scenario studies, and facilitate communication of them to end users. In terms of challenges, they were perceived as subjective in their interpretation, oversimplifying information, having a limited applicability across scales, and concealing contextual information and novel narratives. Finally, our results highlight what methodologies, applications, and frontiers in archetype-based research should be explored in the future. These advances can assist the design of future large-scale sustainability-related assessment processes, aiming to better support decisions and interventions for equitable and sustainable futures.

Non-technical summaryWe identify a set of essential recent advances in climate change research with high policy relevance, across natural and social sciences: (1) looming inevitability and implications of overshooting the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) urgent need for a rapid and managed fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges for scaling carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding the future contribution of natural carbon sinks, (5) intertwinedness of the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) compound events, (7) mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility in the face of climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems.Technical summaryThe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Reports provides the scientific foundation for international climate negotiations and constitutes an unmatched resource for researchers. However, the assessment cycles take multiple years. As a contribution to cross- and interdisciplinary understanding of climate change across diverse research communities, we have streamlined an annual process to identify and synthesize significant research advances. We collected input from experts on various fields using an online questionnaire and prioritized a set of 10 key research insights with high policy relevance. This year, we focus on: (1) the looming overshoot of the 1.5°C warming limit, (2) the urgency of fossil fuel phase-out, (3) challenges to scale-up carbon dioxide removal, (4) uncertainties regarding future natural carbon sinks, (5) the need for joint governance of biodiversity loss and climate change, (6) advances in understanding compound events, (7) accelerated mountain glacier loss, (8) human immobility amidst climate risks, (9) adaptation justice, and (10) just transitions in food systems. We present a succinct account of these insights, reflect on their policy implications, and offer an integrated set of policy-relevant messages. This science synthesis and science communication effort is also the basis for a policy report contributing to elevate climate science every year in time for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.Social media summaryWe highlight recent and policy-relevant advances in climate change research – with input from more than 200 experts.

The achievement of several sustainable development goals and the Paris Climate Agreement depends on rapid progress towards sustainable food and land systems in all countries. We have built a flexible, collaborative modeling framework to foster the development of national pathways by local research teams and their integration up to global scale. Local researchers independently customize national models to explore mid-century pathways of the food and land use system transformation in collaboration with stakeholders. An online platform connects the national models, iteratively balances global exports and imports, and aggregates results to the global level. Our results show that actions toward greater sustainability in countries could sum up to 1 Mha net forest gain per year, 950 Mha net gain in the land where natural processes predominate, and an increased CO 2 sink of 3.7 GtCO 2 e yr −1 over the period 2020–2050 compared to current trends, while average food consumption per capita remains above the adequate food requirements in all countries. We show examples of how the global linkage impacts national results and how different assumptions in national pathways impact global results. This modeling setup acknowledges the broad heterogeneity of socio-ecological contexts and the fact that people who live in these different contexts should be empowered to design the future they want. But it also demonstrates to local decision-makers the interconnectedness of our food and land use system and the urgent need for more collaboration to converge local and global priorities.