A systematic understanding of TC is critical to achieve the SDGs and the 2050 Vision because the SDGs and the 2050 Vision envisages a complete transformation of global economies and natural systems. To achieve the SDGs and the Global Vision, we must reconceptualize strategies and mechanisms that build on the insights of the TCA to advance these global goals. The TCA’s framework for transformative change pinpoints the key elements missing from current efforts by governments, non-profits, and business organizations to advance the SDGs. It highlights how attention to integral shifts in views, structures and practices can be incorporated into SDG and biodiversity focused efforts for more systematic advance for a better world for biodiversity and people. The proposed panel session will focus on the sustainable development goals closely related to biodiversity and nature: Life below water, Life on land, Climate action, and Responsible consumption and production. The papers will analyze opportunities for common interventions related to these goals to assess how they can lead to transformative change for sustainable development through integral shifts in views, structures and practices.
Cities have emerged as the central arenas for delivering sustainable development solutions on a global scale. Currently home to more than half the world's population, urban areas are projected to accommodate 68% of humanity by 2050. Urbanization strongly drives economic growth, knowledge innovation, and social vitality, but at the same time, it can exacerbate issues such as energy consumption, environmental pollution, housing shortages, and unequal access to public services. Urban visions are increasingly recognized as critical instruments for navigating the complexities of sustainability transitions, yet the causal mechanisms linking these normative narratives to tangible transformative change remain theoretically fragmented. Synthesizing multi-disciplinary literature and utilizing large language models (LLM), this review distill key transformative attributes of more than 200 urban visions and more than 250 rural visions from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Transformative Change Assessment database. We examine how vision types and attributes are associated with the likelihood of systemic change across different stages of urbanization. We argue that effective visions catalyze transformation not merely through aspiration, but through three distinct operative mechanisms: (1) spatially explicit, which reconfigures territorial identities and land-use priorities; (2) multi-stakeholder alignment, which coordinates fragmented governance across sectors; and (3) sustainability anchoring, which addresses the trade-offs between long-term ecological or environmental targets and short-term economic benefits. By contrasting these theoretical mechanisms with vision typologies extracted via LLM, we observe that explicitly sustainability-oriented visions are essential for systemic restructuring, yet frequently operate in tension with short-term economic imperatives. In addition, the impact of urban visions on transformative change is not uniform across all urban contexts; rather, their effectiveness depends on urbanization levels. Specifically, as urbanization increases, the impact of urban visions becomes increasingly positive and powerful. Conceptually, this finding positions urban visions as conditional catalysts—their success depends on structural readiness. Rural visions, conversely, act as universal enablers grounded in human-nature ethics and community cohesion, which transcend spatial context. These findings are beneficial for not only drive transformative changes but also offer concrete policy insights for urbanizing regions.
How to cite: Huang, Q., Gu, T., Liao, C., and Sebastian, V.: From Urban Visions to Transformative Change and Sustainable Development: Critical Attributes and Challenges , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-576, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-576, 2026.
Guerilla gardening is the cultivation of crops – whether for food or for aesthetic purposes – on private or public abandoned and neglected urban, suburban, and exurban plots by individuals and groups that do not have legal property rights over the cultivated plots. A wide variety of plots are implicated in guerilla gardening, and include vacant lots and road medians. Efforts at guerilla gardening are widespread and have been documented across a large number of countries, with prominent examples from New York, Los Angeles, Detroit in the US and from various locations in nearly 30 countries including the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and Greece. The primary stakeholders in guerilla gardening are community members who see themselves as part of a broader movement to strengthen new strains of urbanism by through civil disobedience, challenging the commodification of land, and strengthening democratic participation. Other stakeholders include city agencies and officials who are at times called upon to adjudicate the legality of urban land use for unauthorized community gardens and land cultivation. The subversive orientation of guerilla gardening, in that it questions land claims embedded in property rights to urban land, makes it almost inevitable that it advances different dimensions of justice. Variations in strategies, contexts, and outcomes of guerilla gardening offer an important opportunity to assess how and when it contributes to urban transformative change for equitable biodiversity enhancement and food security. By comparing six case examples of guerilla gardening from around the world, this research highlights the conditions under which it strengthens transformative change for equitable biodiversity conservation in urban contexts. Outcomes demonstrate the relevance of guerilla gardening for transformative change because they show how it has led to changes in views, structures, and practices in many different parts of the world. It is also evident that there is a close relationship between the advancing of recognitional, procedural, and distributive justice outcomes and the multi-faceted manner in which guerilla gardening shapes urban food and land outcomes.
How to cite: Agrawal, A. and Gladstone, F.: Guerilla Gardening for Equitable Biodiversity Conservation and Urban Change , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-579, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-579, 2026.
Multi-stakeholder partnerships and collaborations for sustainable development among government, private sector, and civil society groups, enshrined in the final SDG 17, are understood as essential to achieving the previous 16 goals. However, more careful analysis of how partnerships enable or hinder transformative change towards the SDGs has been insufficient. The identity and interests of partners, what they do, and how they work together–or fail to do so– in structures created for the purpose of collaboration towards the goals is especially important. Focusing on SDG 2 and 17, this paper examines the nature and outcomes of collaborations for the transformative SDG 2 subtargets of smallholder agriculture and sustainable farming. The comparative historical approach driving the paper analyses the “Zero Hunger” policies in Brazil and Mexico during the period 2003-2009 and 2013-2017, respectively. In particular, we review Brazil’s example of majority civil-society participation in the governance bodies for Fome Zero, where spaces for decision-making on food security excluded its powerful agribusiness lobby. By contrast, Mexico’s tokenistic use of civil society in its National Crusade Against Hunger allowed corporate actors to reduce the country’s anti-hunger strategy to an expansion in the delivery of industrial food products. We suggest, based on the comparison, that SDG 17 offers a slippery terrain for pursuing transformative change because it allows for the entrenchment of short-term, individual and material gains, concentration of power and wealth, and disconnection from and domination over nature and people – all under the guise of advancing the targets associated with the SDGs. These outcomes are the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature’s decline. To pursue the transformative change needed for achievement of the SDGs, it is necessary to address power dynamics in partnerships for SDG interventions by creating structures for collaboration that protect representation from less powerful players as well as norms of transparency and accountability. Without such care in structuring partnerships for the goals, the risks of entrenching the status quo and misusing public resources increase significantly.
How to cite: Gladstone, F. and Agrawal, A.: The slippery terrain of collaborations to achieve zero hunger and sustainable agricultural transformations, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-809, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-809, 2026.
Practices associated with regenerative grazing are increasingly recognized as necessary for achieving Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) Targets 15.3 (end desertification and restore degraded land) and 15.5 (protect biodiversity and natural habitats), both of which have to do with Life on Land. Evidence from grasslands around the world suggests that regenerative grazing can improve soil health, increase biodiversity, enhance ecosystem function, and restore degraded land and habitats. However, what often goes underappreciated -- both in research and in policy -- are the inner dimensions of regenerative land stewardship: the values, mindsets, mental models, and worldviews that make such practices not only possible, but successful and enduring. Without these relational underpinnings, technical interventions risk becoming fragmented, short-lived, or disconnected from the social-ecological systems they aim to support. Drawing on qualitative data from a multi-year study of 60 U.S. ranchers, this paper explores how regenerative grazing is animated by a relational value system rooted in humility, attentiveness, reciprocity, and care for more-than-human life. Ranchers in the study describe regeneration not merely as a land management strategy, but as a way of seeing, relating, and belonging -- a worldview that reshapes how they engage with land, make decisions, and define success over time. This analysis supports Strategy 5 of the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment, which calls for a shift in societal views and values to recognize and support human-nature interdependency, and a move away from relations of domination towards relations of care. It also aligns with the Inner Development Goals (IDG) initiative, which identifies inner capacities -- such as empathy, connectedness, and systems thinking -- as essential to achieving systemic transformation and the global SDGs. We argue that efforts to protect biodiversity and restore ecosystems must move beyond surface-level solutions to engage the mindscapes that shape land-based practices. Recognizing these inner dimensions helps clarify when, how, and why interventions become truly transformative—supporting both ecological restoration and the regeneration of human-nature relationships.
How to cite: Gosnell, H. and Gordon, E.: Inner Dimensions of Regeneration: Relational Values and Mindsets as Catalysts for Transformative Change in Land Stewardship, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-582, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-582, 2026.
To understand how knowledge can translate into interventions that advance transformative change, we can learn from a historical perspective. Red Lists provide critical knowledge regarding biodiversity decline, especially in Finland where broad assessments have been made regularly since the 1980’s. They deliver information on the threat status of species or ecosystems, but also proposals for action that guide conservation policy and have the potential to contribute to transformative change. We ask whether the transformative potential of these proposals has changed over time. We analyzed their contents qualitatively and quantitatively in seven Finnish Red Lists of Species or Ecosystems from 1986 to 2019. Our analysis framework relied on a prior assessment linking the Conservation action classification by the Conservation Measures Partnership to the Meadows’ sustainability leverage points, complemented by analyzing the share of cross-sectoral proposals. Our approach aligns with Termeer et al.’s recent framework that identifies three dimensions for transformative change: quick (historical perspective), in-depth (leverage points) and system-wide (cross-sectoral). Statistical analyses showed an increase in cross-sectoral proposals, but only a very small change toward deeper leverage actions (influencing root causes). Contrastingly, qualitative assessment of the way in which the actions were proposed showed trends toward more complex ensembles of actions and effectiveness of implementation, demonstrating a within-action-category change toward deeper leverage. The growing transformative potential could be both a driver and a consequence of a broader societal change, driven by the ongoing biodiversity loss, but inference of causality is beyond the reach of our analyses. Yet, as biodiversity loss is continuing, it is clear that recent cross-sectoral efforts have often failed to reach the deepest leverage points and the root causes of the crisis. Concurrently, the change has also been too slow. Red Lists could play a role in transformative change, but the engagement of actors across the society in devising the action proposals could be even more inclusive and cover expertise from social sciences and humanities to achieve deeper leverage. Our results also emphasize the importance of considering complementary dimensions of transformative change simultaneously to achieve a comprehensive understanding of viable paths toward societal change.
How to cite: Arponen, A., Salomaa, A., Fabritius, H., Juslén, A., and Kuusela, S.: Transformative potential of action proposals in Finnish Red Lists from 1986 to 2019 , World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-595, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-595, 2026.
Rapid ocean warming is pushing Caribbean coral reef systems toward irreversible loss within a single generation (Hughes et al. 2018), forcing practitioners into forms of governance innovation that no longer resemble conventional community-based conservation. Drawing on insights from the Caribbean Coral Interventions Roundtable and emerging global practice, this talk examines how practitioners are improvising new forms of stewardship when ecological collapse outpaces regulatory, scientific, and institutional capacity. Under these conditions, when baselines collapse and continuity cannot be assumed, actors must renegotiate risk, legitimacy, and responsibility while navigating profound uncertainty and community expectations.
Across cases from around the globe, we observe practitioners blending governance approaches in ways that were rarely envisioned in the pre-rupture era. These include adaptive rollouts of novel interventions; cross-border coordination for experimental trials; new learning partnerships among governments, NGOs, and universities; and integration of decentralized local monitoring networks into regional decision-making. Equally significant are emergent “bridging” roles, individuals and organizations that stitch together fragmented authority structures and broker trust during high-stakes intervention planning. These strategies reflect practice under destabilization, where relational trust, moral judgment, and anticipatory decision-making become as important as technical feasibility.
Coral reefs thus provide a field-laboratory for SDG-relevant governance transformation, particularly for SDG 14 and its intersections with SDGs 13, 15, and 17. The talk highlights key tensions shaping this transition: risk versus legitimacy in the rollout of high-impact but uncertain interventions; local authority versus regional coordination in rapidly shifting ecological baselines; and rapid action versus ethical care when communities face both ecological grief and the potential for irreversible loss. Taken together, these tensions illuminate why governance innovation, rather than solely ecological or technological innovation, is emerging as a central determinant of coral futures.
The findings suggest opportunities for collaborative experimentation, risk-sharing arrangements, and learning infrastructures capable of supporting decision-making under accelerating ecological change. Lessons from coral governance under rupture are transferable to any socio-ecological system confronting the speed, intensity, and uncertainty of climate-driven destabilization.
Hughes, T. P., Kerry, J. T., Álvarez-Noriega, M., et al. (2018). "Global warming transforms coral reef assemblages." Nature 556, 492–496.
How to cite: Goldstein, B.: Coral Reefs as Field-Laboratories for Transformation Under Ecological Rupture, World Biodiversity Forum 2026, Davos, Switzerland, 14–19 Jun 2026, WBF2026-416, https://doi.org/10.5194/wbf2026-416, 2026.
