This is the accepted version of the journal article: Pascual, Unai; McElwee, Pamela D.; Diamond, Sarah E.; [et al.]. «Gov- erning for transformative change across the biodiversity-climate-society nexus». BioScience, Vol. 72, Issue 7 (July 2022), p. 684-704. DOI https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/72/7/684/6593160 This version is available at https://ddd.uab.cat/record/266804 under the terms of the license Governing for transformative change across the biodiversity-climate-society nexus Pascual, U.1,2,3,*, McElwee, P. D.4, Diamond, S. E.5, Ngo, H. T.6 , Bai, X.7, Cheung, W.W. L.8, Lim, M.10 , Steiner, N.11,12, Agard, J.13, Donatti, C. I.14, Duarte, C.M,15, Leemans, R.16, Managi, S.17, Pires, A. P. F.18, Reyes-García, V.19,20, Trisos, C.21,22, Scholes, R.J.,23 and Pörtner, H.-O.24 1 Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3), Leioa, Spain. 2 Basque Foundation for Science (Ikerbasque), Bilbao, Spain. 3 Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. 4 Department of Human Ecology, Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, New Jersey, USA. 5 Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, USA. 6 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. 7 Fenner School of Environment & Society, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia. 8 Institute for the Oceans and Fisheries, Faculty of Science, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada. 9 The Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, Conservation International, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 10 Centre for Environmental Law, Macquarie Law School, Macquarie University, NSW, Australia. 11 Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Institute of Ocean Sciences, Sidney, BC, Canada. 12 Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada. 13 Department of Life Sciences, The University of The West Indies, St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. 14 Conservation International, The Betty and Gordon Moore Center for Science, 2011 Crystal Dr, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22202, USA, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, USA. 15 Red Sea Research Centre (RSRC) and Computational Bioscience Research Centre (CBRC), King Abdullah University of Science and Technology, Thuwal, Saudi Arabia. 16 Environmental Systems Analysis Group, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 17 Urban Institute, Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan. 18 Rio de Janeiro State University (UERJ), Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 19 Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ICREA), 08010, Barcelona, Spain. 20 Institute of Environmental Science and Technology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, E- 08193, Bellaterra, Cerdanyola del Vallès-Barcelona, Spain. 1 21 African Climate and Development Initiative, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 22 Centre for Statistics in Ecology, Environment and Conservation, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. 23 University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa 24 Alfred-Wegener-Institute, Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany. Abstract: Transformative governance is key to addressing the global environmental crisis. We explore how transformative governance of complex biodiversity-climate-society interactions can be achieved, drawing on the first joint IPCC-IPBES report to reflect on the current opportunities, barriers and challenges for transformative governance. We identify principles for transformative governance under a biodiversity-climate-society nexus framing using four case studies: forest ecosystems, marine ecosystems, urban environments, and the Arctic. The principles focus on creating conditions to build: (1) multifunctional interventions; (2) integration and innovation across scales; (3) coalitions of support; (4) equitable approaches; and (5) positive social tipping dynamics. We posit that building on such transformative governance principles is not only possible but essential to effectively keep climate change within the desired 1.5°C global mean temperature increase, halt the ongoing accelerated decline of global biodiversity, and promote human wellbeing. 1. Introduction The global scientific community continues to warn that increasing climate change and biodiversity loss will have reinforcing and co-detrimental impacts on humanity. These impacts include increasing vulnerability to food insecurity, health risks and disrupted livelihoods, and even involuntary displacements leading to potential social unrest (e.g., IPBES 2019b; IPCC 2021, 2022). As the window to avoid far-reaching and irreversible impacts on people and nature rapidly closes (IPBES 2019; IPCC 2021 2022), current actions to address these global challenges are insufficient (e.g., Arneth et al. 2020; Ripple et al. 2017). Strategies to address some of the negative trends have been proposed. Yet, the feedbacks and interactions among biodiversity, climate and society at multiple spatial, temporal and organizational scales – what we label here the ‘Biodiversity-Climate-Society (BCS) nexus’ – are generally ignored (Pörtner et al. 2021). This is problematic because the connections between climatic, ecological, and social systems transmit risks from one system to another. Response strategies that ignore these nexus interactions may significantly under- or mis-estimate those risks, thereby increasing the chance of irreversible environmental changes across the planet (Simpson et al. 2021). 2 To simultaneously address interlinked global challenges, the scientific community has increasingly emphasized the need for deep and urgent transformative changes across economies and societies. Transformative change is understood as game-changing shifts, or “fundamental, system-wide reorganizations across technological, economic and social factors, including paradigms, goals and values” (IPBES 2019: 14). Such emphasis by the global scientific community contrast with policies being currently proposed that focus on incremental changes, or changes restricted to actions that are accommodated within existing system structures and goals: for example, actions geared to increase energy efficiency within production life-cycles under an overarching goal of constant and exponential economic growth. Given the current situation, we posit that incremental changes are unlikely to gain sufficient traction to be scaled-up if they are not accompanied by broader system-wide institutional changes to create the structural conditions for such scaling up to occur. Incremental changes also risk being too slow to avoid severe negative impacts on people and nature. The IPCC’s recent 6th Assessment WG1 report indicated that, if current emission levels continue, the 1.5°C temperature threshold could be surpassed this decade (IPCC 2021). Similarly, the IPBES Global Assessment concluded that reversing processes of biodiversity decline can only be achieved through intentional and transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological systems (IPBES 2019). The need for transformative change was also one of the key messages to policymakers of the first joint workshop report by IPCC and IPBES (Pörtner et al. 2021), which pointed out the need for a system-wide reconfiguration of societal structures and institutions (i.e., conventions, norms and rules), as these largely determine societal goals, values and behaviors, all of which are essential to address the underlying drivers of the climate and biodiversity crises. In other words, bringing about transformative change requires ‘transformative governance’, which would need to address the inherent complexities and feedbacks of the BCS nexus, particularly around speed, scope, scale and social impacts and feedbacks. The question we attempt to answer here is: How can transformative governance be achieved for the BCS nexus? While much literature has addressed transformative change in a general sense (e.g., Barnes et al. 2020; Colloff et al. 2017; Horlings 2016; Hysing and Lidskog 2021) identifying the specific needs for transformative governance around climate and biodiversity has, to date, been largely missing. We delineate key conditions required for shifting from (at best) a stepwise (incremental) agenda aimed at modest reforms to one that intentionally embraces deeper (i.e., tackling underlying and/or indirect drivers of change) and more rapid transformative potential to address fundamental BCS interactions, limits, and thresholds. We draw on the framing of the BCS nexus of the first joint IPCC-IPBES report to which we contributed (Pörtner et al. 2021). We first outline how the elements of the nexus interact, such as through co-benefits, trade-offs and co-detriments, as well as the 3 importance of both negative and positive tipping points, to identify the conditions for transformative governance for climate and biodiversity. To be transformative, governance approaches will likely need to include integrative, adaptive and equitable elements in order to account for the social complexities of the BCS nexus. To illustrate the opportunities, barriers and challenges for transformative governance we draw on four examples in forest ecosystems, marine ecosystems, urban environments and the Arctic. Ideally, transformative governance would catalyze and create inclusive (yet sometimes intentionally disruptive) approaches for up-scaling of more effective and just interventions in the BCS space, such as by triggering positive social tipping points or by avoiding negative biophysical tipping points (Stadelmann-Steffen et al. 2021). Yet our examples show this is rarely achieved. By drawing on lessons from these case-studies, we identify generalizing yet actionable principles that are likely to be required for transformative governance of the BCS nexus. 2. Key elements of the Biodiversity-Climate-Society nexus 2.1. Recognizing BCS interacting dynamics The biodiversity and climate crises and their societal causes and consequences have traditionally been explored by either focusing on the biophysical level, including biodiversity (B) - climate (C) interactions, or at the societal level (S), including policy interventions and institutional structures (summarized in Chapin and Díaz 2020). The IPCC-IPBES report argues that it is necessary to consider the joint three-way interactions between biodiversity, climate, and society in order to effectively maximize co-benefits and minimize tradeoffs and co-detrimental outcomes (Portner et al. 2021). In this section, we provide examples of how moving from a siloed approach of considering BCS component separately towards rethinking of their interaction space as a nexus with explicit linkages between its components can lead to more positive outcomes in all three dimensions. We specifically consider how the societal dimension flows into and feeds out of BC interactions (Figure 1). Such a nexus approach has the advantage of making the entire system better able to respond to the speed and scale of the coupled climate and biodiversity crises. Biophysical interactions typically involve the relationships between climate, biodiversity, and ecosystem functioning, including productivity and carbon removal and storage (Duffy 2009), and tolerance and adaptation limits of species and ecosystems (Hoegh-Guldberg et al. 2019; Pires et al. 2018). The social dimension refers mostly to issues of human wellbeing and justice as well as to the associated governance challenges (i.e., the establishment of new institutions or the redesign of already-existing ones that could help navigate the biophysical BC interactions). The social dimension depends in part on how the BC interaction occurs. For example, the impacts of 4 biodiversity restoration projects on society can vary depending on the restored community composition (e.g., if restored species can be used as wild-harvested foods or were only chosen for carbon priorities) or on the degree to which climate change shifts the biogeographic distribution of restored species (Robledo et al. 2012; Wessels et al. 2021). The social dimension also actively shapes BC interactions (Bennett et al. 2017). Take, for example, anti-poverty interventions based on the simplistic assumption that wellbeing effects of economic growth automatically trickle-downs to small farmers. In fact, agricultural growth strategies can become a potent trigger of land grabbing to favor capital accumulation by the agribusiness sector while eroding the ecological resource base of agroecosystems and increasing social inequalities (Borras and Franco 2018; Ceddia 2020; Gras and Cáceres 2020). This, in turn, can cascade and amplify negative impacts on the BC interaction space, harming both biodiversity and climate. This may happen by replacing undisturbed biodiverse high-carbon storage ecosystems with agricultural monocultures that have poor carbon-storage capacities. Societal impacts then flow once again out of the BC interaction space: in the agribusiness example, a focus on maximizing short-term economic growth could lead to lock-in maladaptive responses, including land degradation and the displacement of smaller-scale landholders’ resilient agricultural practices and institutions such as social norms for collective action (Albizua et al. 2019; Labeyrie et al. 2021). Other examples of societal impacts flowing out of BC interactions include the expansion of monoculture afforestation for carbon sequestration that misses the opportunity to increase native biodiversity and sustain local people’s livelihoods (Abreu et al. 2017; Doelman et al. 2020) rather than supporting restoration efforts based on local knowledge and practices which might produce co-benefits for ecosystems and people (Reyes-García et al. 2019). Interactions in the BCS nexus from a particular action can be placed into three broad categories, each characterized by the outcomes of interactions across the biophysical and social subsystems: 1) co-benefits (when the action leads to all BCS components to have positive outcomes); 2) trade-offs (when the action leads to negative outcomes for B, C or S, and the remainder positive or neutral) and 3) co-detriments (when the action leads to all BCS components to show negative outcomes) (Figure 1). While these broad categories provide a useful heuristic, recognizing the complexities that underlie BCS interactions is important, particularly the specific social-ecological and/or spatio-temporal context to be considered. For example, BCS interactions may involve nonlinearities in the shape of their association including synergistic or saturating functions, cascades and feedbacks, and ‘off-stage’ (i.e., spatially and temporally distant and diffuse) environmental impacts (Pascual et al. 2017; Pörtner et al. 2021; Meyfroidt et al. 2022). Broadly, these complexities call for a holistic understanding of BCS interactions, including considering how interactions change over time and have different effects across spatial scales. The restoration of diverse, high-carbon storage ecosystems provides an example of such complexities. Restoration might have immediate benefits for biodiversity and local populations and their future 5 livelihoods via enhanced options for adapting to climate change (Colloff et al. 2020), but restoration might have delayed benefits for carbon storage, which might taper over time as the ecosystem matures (Bindoff et al. 2019; Leo et al. 2019; Yang et al. 2019). Another example includes runaway biodiversity-climate feedbacks in which human-induced biodiversity loss diminishes ecosystem functioning including carbon storage. This then leads to further warming, in turn triggering additional loss of biodiversity that may result in significantly larger climate and biodiversity deterioration than when considering each component in isolation, and thus underestimating the negative effects on vulnerable communities’ wellbeing (Bergstrom et al. 2021; Trisos et al. 2021). Figure 1. Outcomes of interactions within the biodiversity-climate-society (BCS) nexus. The triangle represents the BCS nexus including biophysical interactions between biodiversity and climate, and their explicit linkages with the social dimension. Interactions and outcomes of the BCS nexus shape inputs and outputs to policy intervention. Transformative governance might help guide BCS nexus interactions towards more co-beneficial outcomes or at least towards those with minimal and controlled tradeoffs, whereas incremental governance might lead to strong tradeoffs. 6 Transformative governance approaches and specific policy options can be improved by better understanding the speed, scope, scale and impacts of the interacting BCS nexus components. Social-ecological systems include a mix of processes that operate at both fast and slow rates (Walker et al. 2012; Walker and Salt 2006). Examples of fast processes include political electoral cycles, fast turnover in dominance of exotic species, as well as short-lived climate forcers, such as methane or crop-production cycles. By contrast, slow processes include those associated with shifting of socially shared values and visions about progress and wellbeing, ice-sheet melting, sea- level rise, and decomposition of soil-organic matter. These slow processes can take generations. Addressing multiple interactions over vastly different time-scales yet potentially occurring at the same time requires institutional (including policy) flexibility, continual innovation, social learning and adjustment, and adaptation of governance arrangements (Ramm et al. 2018; Reyers and Selig 2020). Understanding the scope of interactions should include attention to the considerable asymmetries inherent in the BCS space. Negative effects of climate policy interventions on biodiversity are more prevalent than negative effects of biodiversity policy interventions on climate (Pörtner et al. 2021), with potential complementary effects across multiple ecosystems and scales (Manes et al. 2022). Similarly, land-based biodiversity and climate interventions typically have higher direct and immediate social impacts on rural than urban populations (Karlsson et al. 2020). Multiple scales are also in effect in uneven ways in the BCS space; for example, climate impacts are driven by globally accumulating greenhouse gases, which can be felt in local and regional levels, while biodiversity loss impacts are almost always locally experienced, and thereby affect the capacity of ecological systems to benefit people as local public good, but whose aggregate global effect may be declining across global taxa and associated gene pools (i.e., a global public good) (Perrings and Kinzig 2021). Governance institutions also cross multiple dimensions and scales, for example from those based on collective action by local communities to global environmental agreements such as those under the Convention of Biological Diversity. This creates complexity for any specific level of jurisdiction to grapple with and temporal, spatial and institutional scale mismatches (Bai et al. 2016a). Moreover, if these scales are not properly aligned they can lead to institutional inertia However challenging, integrating systems- thinking into governance is much needed to address the increasingly telecoupled nature of BCS interactions (Liu et al. 2018; Simpson et al. 2021; Meyfroidt et al. 2022). Awareness of, and mechanisms to adapt to the synergistic outcomes (both positive and negative) that 7 are characteristic of the BCS nexus can help inform policy interventions to optimize co- benefits, minimize trade-offs, and avoid co-detrimental impacts. 2.2. Negative and positive thresholds in the BCS nexus In the absence of policy interventions to address the climate and biodiversity crises, the risks of exceeding biophysical limits and crossing critical thresholds that trigger tipping points can be high (e.g., Zhang et al. 2020). This would likely result in system feedbacks that propel the coupled biophysical BC space into a new state from where recovery may be difficult. Such shifts are often associated with abrupt changes in ecosystem function (i.e., ‘red lines’) (Lenton et al. 2019). Biophysical tipping points generally occur over different temporal trajectories with some being approached gradually while others more abrupt. In all cases though, they could cascade through the social subsystem affecting all human societies, likely exacerbating social inequalities and the vulnerabilities of marginalized communities (Ginkel et al. 2020; Otto et al. 2017; Simpson et al. 2021). Although many climate- and biodiversity-related tipping points in key biomes across the world are known (IPCC 2014, 2019a, 2019b; Steffen et al. 2015) predicting with relative high degrees of accuracy the likely location and timing of triggering conditions remains challenging (Scheffer et al. 2015). The potential for feedbacks and nonlinear effects associated with BC interactions imply that governing the BCS nexus should pay special attention to avoiding tipping points that negatively affect nature and people in irreversible ways. An example is the shifts from coral to algae-dominated systems on reefs. These shifts are driven by rising temperatures associated with climate change (and exacerbated by ocean acidification and local stressors such as overfishing and pollution) and lead to widespread bleaching of corals, thus allowing algal communities to become dominant (Bruno et al. 2019). This regime shift suppresses an important ecosystem engineer (i.e., corals), thereby causing the reef-associated fish assemblage to degrade, negatively affecting reef fisheries and fishers’ livelihoods (Ainsworth and Mumby 2015). Another example involves the tipping point of shifts from sea-ice to open-water dominated systems, involving transitions from predominantly sea-ice associated (sympagic) and benthic productivity to primarily pelagic productivity caused by increased temperatures. This affects human societies including Inuit communities who directly depend on sea ice to hunt and as a base for transportation (Duarte et al. 2012; Steiner 2021). In this case, thresholds on environmental temperature for retaining sea ice are exceeded, altering biological community composition, trophic structure and downstream consequences for people, including their livelihoods and cultural identity. Despite research in cases such as coral reefs and kelp forests, the complexity of BCS interactions makes it challenging to identify the precise triggers of tipping points. Proactive climate and biodiversity conservation policies are therefore critical to staying well away from 8 critical thresholds (IPBES 2019a; Lenton et al. 2019; Ginkel et al. 2020). Inherent uncertainties require prioritization of the precautionary principle, which although it has been incorporated into multiple legal instruments, still often fails to be in full effect (Read and O’Riordan 2017). It is also possible to think of BCS-related positive social tipping points. Tipping points can also be understood from a social perspective. Social tipping points represent situations associated with large and abrupt shifts within the social system which can lead to ‘transformative change’. Generally social tipping dynamics are understood as processes linked to the spreading of norms, opinions, behaviors, and actions through social networks in ways that are difficult to stop or reverse (Milkoreit et al. 2018; Stadelmann-Steffen et al. 2021). While attention is often paid to social tipping points with negative outcomes that are triggered by political, economic or food crises, among others, positive social tipping points that involve actions with desirable social transformations, are also possible. However, positive social tipping points have only recently come to the fore within a BCS nexus perspective (Franzke et al. 2022). The dynamics of positive social tipping are also often nonlinear, where a small social intervention by political, and social actors triggers an accelerating feedback response that leads to a substantial and potentially irreversible change in the social system via positive contagious dynamics (Milkoreit et al. 2018; Stadelmann-Steffen et al. 2021). Examples of BCS-related positive social tipping points include well-designed restoration programs that not only induce positive land cover changes in implementing communities, but which have ‘spilled over’ into other nearby areas as well as benefits experienced by neighbors (Buxton et al. 2021). Likewise, rapid shifts in public opinion, as well as individual preferences, behaviors and values leading to behavioral change in societies, such as the rapid uptake of electric vehicles beyond early adopters in Norway (Lenton et al. 2021) are examples of social tipping dynamics that could hopefully apply to the willingness to support the institutional changes needed to tackle the biodiversity and climate crises in effective and just ways (Brulle et al. 2012). Social tipping dynamics require of technological, political, and behavioral processes. They are also a function of cultural conventions, including habits, norms, and regulations, and thus they are hard to compare across different social contexts (Milkoreit et al. 2018). Thus, while successful social tipping interventions in one social context may serve as an inspiration for others, it is important to not assume that all such successful interventions could become silver bullets across distinct social contexts. Activating global positive social tipping dynamics through targeted actions (e.g., divesting from fossil fuels by a number of large investors which could potentially trigger rapid and widespread divestment by others seeking to avoid losses) requires a mix of interventions that shift collectively shared norms and deeply held societal values (e.g., revealing the moral implications of continuing to burn fossil fuels). Activating social tipping dynamics also entails acting upon psychological elements that underpin everyday individual behavior, including consumption choices (O’Brien 2020) and confronting the political inertia and resistance by strong vested interests that 9 favors the status quo (IPBES 2019a; Otto et al. 2020) and that takes advantage of the rigidities inherent in political and economic decision-making. Actions are needed that disrupt the social mechanisms that maintain the status quo that amplify reinforcing the global environmental crisis. Social tipping dynamics require identifying key intervention nodes at which small shifts, that are often hard to be made visible (e.g., shifting values that are aligned with respect towards nature and future generations) can lead to activating strong motivations for behavioral change that can then spread quickly to become a major accepted practice (Markard et al. 2020). Figure 2 illustrates the idea that social tipping interventions might hasten BCS interactions towards co-beneficial pathways for people and nature. Figure 2. Social tipping points under the biodiversity-climate-society (BCS) system. Co- beneficial pathways are illustrated by movement towards desirable deep attractor basins in the BCS space (i.e., those which have positive co-beneficial outcomes across the three elements of the BCS nexus). Social outcomes are depicted by the color shading of the balls representing the state of the system over time. The landscape has different types of possible interactions: a co-beneficial one that society might aspire towards, depicted towards the center of the landscape, trade-offs in the BC space, depicted towards either side of the landscape, and co-detrimental, depicted to the farthest ends of the landscape. Although fully co-beneficial pathways are an ideal to strive towards, it can be difficult to achieve fully positive outcomes in all three BCS dimensions (i.e., the middle pathway in the figure). Instead, the system might move away from a shallow attractor basin, with 10 biodiversity-climate interaction trade-offs and/or negative social outcomes (deeper parts of the landscape represent greater system stability) (Adapted from Pörtner et al. 2021). 3. Conditions and challenges for transformative BCS governance Theorizing and defining transformative governance requires attention to both the concepts of transformation and governance. Governance generally refers to the use of a combination of formal and informal and public and private institutions (including norms, rules, and rulemaking systems) across actor networks at multiple levels (Biermann et al. 2009). Transformation implies fundamental changes across both societal structures and beliefs and behavioral dimensions such that new social-ecological systems are created, and is contrasted with more reformist, shallow or incremental changes that do not question current power structures nor lead to fundamental reorganizations (IPBES 2019). Thus, transformative governance aims to engage societal actors with contested perspectives about what are desirable societal values and goals, whether transformation is indeed desirable (and to whom) or existentially needed, and who is included in decision making to transform current institutional systems, particularly about vested interests who often oppose such actions (Bai et al. 2016b; Blythe et al. 2018; Patterson et al. 2017; Pickering et al. 2021). What transformative governance would look like, and how it is different from or related to existing theories of governance, is a topic of much current discussion (see Table 1). It is generally seen as governance that “has the capacity to respond to, manage, and trigger regime shifts in coupled social-ecological systems at multiple scales” (Chaffin et al. 2016). While transformative governance is often depicted as being good for all, the reality is that the envisaged need for widespread changes across societies will most likely result in winners and losers. Hence, it has been hypothesized that governance needs to be integrated, adaptive, and equitable across natural and social systems in order to be truly transformative (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021). Further, not only should issues of social equity be at the core of transformative governance discourses, but, correspondingly, problems of justice and asymmetric power relations, corporate capture or greenwashing need to be tackled as well (Teichmann et al. 2020; Kenner and Heede 2021; Supran and Oreskes 2021), due to the fact that vested interests by powerful actors often limit or derail attempts towards sustainability transformations (Blythe et al. 2018; Pickering et al. 2021; Visseren- Hamakers et al. 2021). Table 1. Comparing governance concepts across environmental issues Governance Definition and main Relationship to Applicability to the concepts theoretical focus transformative BCS nexus change 11 Environmental Processes, mechanisms Often reactive and is Focus on fit, scale, and governance and organizations by not specifically aimed hybrid forms of which multiple actors at transformation governance relates to across governmental, BCS challenges market and non-state sectors influence environmental actions and outcomes (e.g., Armitage et al. 2012; Lemos and Agrawal 2006) Earth systems Examination of forms, Due to conflicts across Focused on agents and governance effects and complexity scales and norms across architectures; less focus of governance at and administrative on feedbacks, systems across multiple levels boundaries, often lack and biophysical aimed at achieving capacity for fostering dynamics sustainability (e.g., transformative changes Biermann et al. 2010; Burch et al. 2019) Adaptive Aimed at enhancing Can be transformative Applications to governance resilience by governing if aimed at changing ecosystem management through continuous system states, but often but not necessarily on adjustments in response not aimed at doing so. multi-scalar BCS to feedbacks (e.g., thresholds. Chaffin et al. 2014; Folke et al. 2005) Anticipatory Building capacities and Aimed at managing Generally applied more governance steering mechanisms in transformations already to technological the present to govern occurring, but not innovations than future transformations necessarily sparking environmental through foresight, them problems engagement, and integration (e.g., Burch et al. 2019; Guston 12 2014) Polycentric Governance that Does not explicitly Elements of multiscalar governance manifests in nested address transformation interactions can help scales and overlapping address telecoupling functions, often with a BCS nexus, but supporting institutional often applied to single diversity (e.g., Ostrom sectors (e.g., 1990, 2010) polycentric climate governance) Transformative Governance that Explicitly aimed to Implicitly focused governance manages regime shifts achieve transformative across sectors and across multiple scales change scales given integrative in socio-ecological approach; aimed at systems while managing thresholds encouraging social change and innovation (e.g., Chaffin et al. 2016; Patterson et al. 2017; Visseren- Hamakers et al. 2021) Transformative governance needs to account for BC interactions while addressing structural and systemic social conditions and drivers of change (including cultural and economic). In other words, transformative changes for the BCS nexus need to be integrative (across scales, issues and sectors), equitable (sensu inclusive and pluralist, i.e., giving voice to those whose interests are currently marginalized and that rely on different knowledge systems) and adaptive (incorporating flexibility and learning by continuous engaging of stakeholders and rightsholders in incubating, facilitating, accumulating and sustaining innovative practices) (Visseren-Hamakers et al. 2021). These conditions can be translated into the BCS nexus in terms of governance systems that seek to: a) set meaningful integrative societal objectives (e.g., such as those related to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)) that minimize climate risks while maximizing biodiversity protection, thus seeking to avoid hard trade-offs or co-detrimental outcomes; b) recognize the diverse worldviews, values and epistemologies of different actors, including those worldviews that have historically been marginalized, particularly those of Indigenous 13 peoples and local communities (IPLCs), who also tend to be significantly more directly reliant on the natural resource base and thus are especially vulnerable to co-detrimental BC interactions; and c) avoid interventions that may lock-in maladaptive development pathways that are prone to trigger negative biophysical tipping points and/or undermine conditions for propelling positive social tipping dynamics. Some emerging political discourses, such as those embodied within the 2050 Vision of “Living in harmony with nature” (Locke et al. 2019) focus on achieving BCS co-benefits. But only few positive examples of integrated, equitable and adaptive governance approaches within the BCS space are available, let alone offer detailed guidance about what combination of objectives, actors, levels, information and participatory decision-making approaches can ensure desirable (i.e., effective and just) governance approaches (Albert et al. 2021). Even for these positive cases, demarcating governance approaches into those that can be deemed truly transformational, rather than having incremental (sensu reformist) potential, is challenging (IPCC 2022). 4. Key focal areas for governing the Biodiversity-Climate-Society nexus We use four focal areas of interest for the BCS nexus (i.e., forest ecosystems, marine ecosystems, human urban environments, and the Arctic) to illustrate key enabling conditions and challenges that might be encountered when trying to build more transformative approaches to governing the BCS nexus. These four focal areas cover a wide range of broad social-ecological systems. For each focal area, we discuss key interactions in the BCS space. We also reflect on to what extent and how key elements of transformative governance might be applied under the nexus perspective. The governance approaches that are analyzed include Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) programs in the tropics, use of fisheries subsidies in the world’s oceans, new developments in green urban planning, and co-design of natural resource management in the Arctic including recognition and incorporation of indigenous and local traditional knowledge. We also note some associated representative examples from across different ecosystems and disturbance types (Box 1) that help illustrate the opportunities and challenges of various governance models that are being applied around the world. These four case studies also allow us to identify a series of basic principles that would need to be applied for governance to be truly transformative (see Section 5). 4.1. Governing tropical forest systems with REDD+ REDD+ programs have emerged in much of the tropics to reduce deforestation and enhance forest carbon stocks, given that carbon losses from deforestation have risen since the Paris Agreement was signed (currently nearly 4.9 Gt CO2 per year) and many of these areas of degradation and 14 deforestation are biodiversity-rich (Palomo et al. 2019). Major drivers of forest loss include commercial agriculture in REDD+ countries (Hosonuma et al. 2012; Curtis et al. 2018), and feedback-loop mechanisms that have already appeared. For example, carbon-sink capacities have diminished by one-third in major tropical forest basins such as the Amazon and the Congo, which are suffering combined effects from biodiversity loss, drought, higher temperatures and deforestation (Hubau et al. 2020), with real concerns that such forests may reach a tipping point becoming carbon sources rather than sinks. At the same time, continuing social inequities in both basins, such as benefits of deforestation to migrants on frontiers and uneven rights accorded to Indigenous peoples, have amplified the governance challenge (Megevand 2013; Pereira and Viola 2021). REDD+ investments have been prioritized to simultaneously provide carbon sequestration and biodiversity co-benefits (Gardner et al. 2012; Phelps et al. 2012), but generally lack a global equity perspective (Palomo et al. 2019). Comprehensive BCS integration has been difficult; a survey of 80 REDD+ projects found that while most of them touted biodiversity co-benefits, 40% had no specific goals or monitoring for them (Panfil and Harvey 2016). Further, while many REDD+ programs have proposed social safeguards, particularly via equity considerations, social outcomes have been mixed, with few examples of social co-benefits across multiple dimensions (Hajjar et al. 2021). This is largely due to altered resources provisioning and access by forest dependent communities and conflicts over land tenure issues and inequitable benefit sharing (Patel et al. 2013; Pascual et al. 2017; Alusiola et al. 2021). REDD+ projects have bifurcated into i) those mainly providing some social benefits (e.g., in Indonesia where Indigenous communities used REDD+ programs to assert land rights claims (Setyowati 2020)), but where climate-biodiversity co-benefits are unclear, and ii) projects that have focused on biodiversity-climate co-benefits to the exclusion of social concerns, including unequal distribution of burdens on local people due to displacement of ecosystem services access (Pascual et al. 2017) and insufficient attention to legal rights of communities that have incurred high costs in project implementation (Luttrell et al. 2013). One problem with REDD+ and other offset-type mechanisms is that they are not sufficiently adaptive, as they are unable to respond quickly enough to ecosystem-state changes (e.g., driven by disturbance, wildfires or invasive pests, or increasingly, climate change) due to the complexity of monitoring and results-based payment requirements (Nguon and Kulakowski 2013). So far, little evidence exists that REDD+ has enabled conditions for positive social tipping points (i.e., forest management that shifts values and scales up behavioral change). Moreover, concerns have been raised about potential negative indirect impacts, particularly crowding-out of intrinsic social motivations for forest conservation when REDD+ favors commoditization of forest carbon to fit carbon market requirements set by actors that have little knowledge or concern for BCS interactions at the local level (Baynes et al. 2021). 15 The mixed results to date demonstrate that integration of BCS-governance through existing REDD+ approaches has been challenging, with siloed approaches continuing to dominate the forest sector (McElwee et al. 2016; Morita and Matsumoto 2018). Movements toward improved and integrated forest governance have included more attention to both cross-scale and cross- stakeholder models in ‘jurisdictional approaches’, which focus on subnational governments or watersheds in which collaboration is intended to apply to all stakeholders within the jurisdiction (Wunder et al. 2020; Essen and Lambin 2021). Yet, the potential for success of jurisdictional approaches depends on engagement of multiple stake- and rights-holders, buy-in across policy scales, and efficiency of investments, which all face challenges (Myers et al. 2018). Given current visions about REDD+, especially by international donors, its role in fostering deeper transformative change is likely to be unachievable (Lund et al. 2017). One main challenge is that outcomes from REDD+ are highly dependent on the distribution of international funds and significant uncertainty remains around the effectiveness of market incentives versus development aid approaches in being able to properly value and balance across the BCS nexus (Asiyanbi and Lund 2020; Streck 2020). For example, integrated REDD+ approaches that include biodiversity monitoring and social equity are likely to suffer in competitive markets funded by carbon pricing or as transactional expenses covered through traditional development aid (Garcia et al. 2021; Pascual et al. 2018). Further concerns have been raised that offset-type mechanisms (including REDD+) can create perverse incentives for inaction on fossil fuel reductions and perpetuate policy lock-in and unsustainable long-term emission trajectories (Asiyanbi and Lund 2020). This also comes at the expense of integrating behavioral change and social tipping points (e.g., consumer demands for deforestation-free products, and/or reduced consumption of luxury forest goods). The inability of forest offset markets to price in disturbance risks or to account for evidence of slowing carbon sink capacities of forests, not to mention evidence of systematic over- crediting in existing markets, prevents REDD+ from being anticipatory, for example with respect to climate change impacts. Together, this indicates a great difficulty of carbon markets to understand and effectively respond to feedback loops in the BCS space (Badgley et al. 2021; Hurteau et al. 2019). 4.2. Fisheries management in the world’s oceans Having multiple objectives in relation to the individual components of the BCS nexus is increasingly common in marine conservation and fisheries management (Bryndum-Buchholz et al. 2021; Cheung et al. 2021). While marine ecosystems contribute to regulating climate and supporting people’s livelihoods, food and culture (Bindoff et al. 2019), human activities, including fishing, are affecting oceans’ essential regulating, material and non-material contributions to people (IPBES 2019). Globally, biomass of commercially exploited fish stocks has more than halved since the 1950s (Watson et al. 2013), with some populations considered at high 16 conservation risk from both overfishing and climate change (Dulvy et al. 2014; Cheung et al. 2018; Pollom et al. 2021). Simultaneously, BC interactions in marine life include the dangers of progressive warming, acidification and hypoxia of ocean waters and by associated extremes, especially marine heatwaves, or by the exacerbating interactions of these direct drivers (Dahlke et al. 2018; Deutsch et al. 2015; Parker et al. 2017; Pörtner et al. 2014; Tripp-Valdez et al. 2017). The impacts of these changing ocean conditions vary between life stages, species and regions. For example, the strongest impacts are often experienced by embryonic and early life stages of marine fishes and invertebrates (Dahlke et al. 2020), and in regions where rapid warming and loss of oxygen occur currently (Deutsch et al. 2015; Reddin et al. 2020; Sampaio et al. 2021). Biological responses to these environmental changes include poleward biogeographical shifts, loss of spawning habitat, increased local mortalities, reduced productivity of calcifiers and carbonate habitats, and shifts in species interactions and in ecosystem composition and functions (Hoegh- Guldberg et al. 2014; Pörtner et al. 2014). Ocean biodiversity-climate interactions feed back into the social sphere through declining catches in fisheries (Bindoff et al. 2019). In addition, the social component can be mostly associated with economic and governance drivers behind exploitation of fisheries (Finkbeiner et al. 2017). Specifically, social and economic factors such as fishing capacity-enhancing subsidies and ineffective fisheries governance and management, contribute largely to historical overfishing (Hatton et al. 2021). In many cases, the effects of these socio-economic drivers are exacerbated by environmental changes. At the same time BCS interacting outcomes on fisheries often impact hardest on small-scale artisanal fisheries and associated low-income groups because of systemic vulnerabilities driven by high dependence on fishing for income, livelihood and nutrition and low capacity to adapt to changes in resource availability or access (McClanahan et al. 2015). Further, small-scale sectors are often powerless to address the structural drivers that underpin overfishing and climate change (Chuenpagdee and Jentoft 2018; Pörtner et al. 2014). Positive feedback dynamics leading to biophysical tipping points are observed in ecosystems that are important to biodiversity and provide benefits to coastal communities (Eddy et al. 2021). Overall, climate change is projected to result in declines in potential catches of fishes and invertebrates globally, particularly in tropical regions (Bindoff et al. 2019; Tai et al. 2021), with cascading negative impacts on economics and employment levels (Cheung et al. 2021; Sumaila et al. 2019). While overfishing continues and fishing efforts may increase to compensate for these negative climate effects on yield in the short-term, overfishing will exacerbate climate impacts on fisheries in the long-term. Further, removal of ocean biodiversity and biomass and disturbance of seabed carbon storage through excessive bottom trawls (Sala et al. 2021) exacerbate unfavorable BCS interactions through other feedback mechanisms. For example, declines in marine animal biomass impacts their capacity to sequester carbon from surface to deep ocean through various pathways, from sinking of faecal pellets to carcasses (Mallo et al. 2019; Mariani et 17 al. 2020; Saba et al. 2021). Moreover, marine and coastal blue-carbon storage mechanisms are being disturbed by climate warming and associated loss of habitat (Marbà et al. 2015). On the governance side, ideally integrative spatial planning of marine areas can balance multiple human demands and sustain healthy ecosystems while also dealing with the impacts of climate change (Frazão Santos et al. 2020) for example, well-planned marine protected area networks (Sala et al. 2021). To be more integrative, combining careful spatial planning of marine protected areas together with removal of harmful fisheries subsidies offers an immediate opportunity for transformative changes to substantially reduce overfishing (Cisneros-Montemayor et al. 2016; Sumaila et al. 2021) and the associated loss of carbon-sequestration potential and stock. This would also contribute to reducing carbon footprints from capture fisheries (e.g., due to fuel oil subsidies that increase emissions from this sector) (Mariani et al. 2020). Nearly half of the world’s fishing efforts, particularly deep-sea bottom trawling (which is associated with significant carbon emissions), are estimated to be unprofitable without subsidies (Sala et al. 2018). Some subsidies are especially detrimental to adaptive management strategies because they skew incentives, are mismatched to ocean and ecosystem scale, and often lock-in harmful fishing practices (Grafton 2010). Eliminating harmful subsidies would also improve the efficiency of the fishing sector with greater potential to benefit coastal and small-scale fisheries, thus increasing the sector’s equitability (Cheung et al. 2017; Schuhbauer et al. 2017; Sumaila et al. 2021). Additionally, harmful fisheries subsidies often disproportionally favor industrial fisheries, thus putting disadvantages on small-scale fisheries that are supporting the livelihood and wellbeing of coastal communities, particularly in developing countries (Schuhbauer et al. 2017). Small-scale fisheries are often considered under-represented, in terms of their worldviews, values and knowledge systems, in fisheries governance (Johnson et al. 2019; Kaltenborn et al. 2017). Yet despite long-standing research on the harmful effects of fisheries subsidies (Sumaila and Pauly 2007) and the robust evidence of the large potential BCS co-benefits of their removal, examples of transformative ocean governance across scales (international, national and local) have rarely been explicitly integrated within a BCS nexus framing. Reframing subsidies as not only a fishing or biodiversity issue but as one of climate and carbon as well could bring more active consideration of ocean-based solutions in policy discussions at the international and national levels (Machado et al. 2021; Sala et al. 2021; Sumaila et al. 2021). At the same time, ensuring social equity would require attention to any vulnerable fishers that depend on subsidies not being harmed by their removal (Harper and Sumaila 2019; Merayo et al. 2019). 4.3. Integrating BCS policies in cities Cities, where the majority of the human population now resides (United Nations 2019) have substantial impacts on biodiversity and climate change, and in many cases enhance co-detrimental 18 effects and associated risks (Haase et al. 2012; McDonald et al. 2020; Zhao et al. 2021) with some notable exceptions (e.g., cities as bioarks of biodiversity; Shaffer 2018)). Given the strong BCS interactions that occur within urban administrative boundaries (Bai et al. 2018; Elmqvist et al. 2013; Grimm et al. 2008; Roches et al. 2021), cities also provide a ready opportunity to optimize BCS co-benefits, for example via urban nature-based climate solutions (Haase et al. 2017; McPhearson et al. 2015; Raymond et al. 2017; Seddon et al. 2020). An integrative systems approach to urban governance that simultaneously accounts for each BCS component and their interactions is required in most urban contexts (Bai et al. 2016a). To date, only incremental, stepwise progress has been made to understand bilateral interactions. For example, biodiversity- society interactions have been examined from the urban ecosystem-services’ perspective, including renewed attention to urban nature as a food source, especially for marginalized groups (Marselle et al. 2021). Similarly, climate-society interactions have been examined from the perspective of the climate change and health nexus (Endlicher et al. 2008). Yet, focus on biodiversity-climate interactions in urban areas is lagging behind. Many cities consider increased urban density as a means to achieve climate mitigation via reduced transportation-energy requirements, but this often leads to reduced urban green cover with negative impacts on biodiversity (Lin et al. 2021) and human health (IPCC 2022). Yet, devoting renewed attention to careful governance of biodiversity- climate interactions is vital, as increasing evidence emerges on the critical role of urban green infrastructure in mitigating extreme climatic conditions (e.g., via heat island effects) that tend to affect the well-being of the more vulnerable directly (Zolch et al. 2016) and indirectly, for example via green gentrification and planning processes that add to environmental injustices (Anguelovski et al. 2019; Schell et al. 2020). Biodiversity-climate interactions themselves feed back to the social sphere with positive effects of urban vegetation and biodiversity on climate mitigation and, in turn, on human health, as became readily apparent through COVID-19 lockdowns (Bowler et al. 2010; Imran et al. 2019; Roll et al. 2021). Adopting an integrated systems approach would partly enable the conditions for transformative governance in urban planning. For example, bright spot opportunities are possible in urban contexts, such as ‘sponge cities’ in China, which use green roofs, urban wetlands, pervious pavements and rain gardens, among other innovations, to absorb water during storms. These innovations can also lead to co-beneficial outcomes in the BCS space (Zevenbergen et al. 2018). Yet the traditional mental model of cities as a place rather than a system, and the siloed design of and inertia in many urban institutions, means that integration remains challenging (Bai et al. 2016a). This is true not only across but even within each BCS component. For example, the integration of mitigation and adaptation measures within the climate domain is difficult (Silva et al. 2012). For many cities, limited financial capacity leaves little room to look beyond the bare minimum of providing basic municipal services (Colenbrander et al. 2018; Gouldson et al. 2016). 19 Even cities that are willing and able often find themselves constrained by the lack of information and understanding or proper decision-support tools that are context-tailored (Bai et al. 2018). To achieve urban transformative governance, several enabling conditions should be met. These include institutional redesign that enhances inclusive collaboration in and accountability of decision making; promoting regenerative culture and design; stronger science-policy linkages to co-produce locally tailored knowledge and understanding; and enhanced financial capacities of cities through both empowering and enabling conditions from national governments and building innovative partnerships across social sectors (Bai et al. 2016a; Norström et al. 2020; Thomson and Newman 2020). In addition, breaking away from negative system inertia and building positive inertia and changing the urban system’s identity is crucial to create the conditions for social tipping points (Irvine and Bai 2019). Urban sustainability experiments in cities are proven to be effective in this (Bulkeley and Castán Broto 2013; Evans et al. 2016; Irvine and Bai 2019; Marvin et al. 2018). At the same time, innovative practices need to be shared across cities to facilitate co- learning towards more adaptive and equitable urban planning that can feed larger-scale transformative change. 4.4. Governance of drivers of change in the Arctic The Arctic is experiencing accelerated changes in climate and biodiversity (AMAP 2021; IPCC 2019b, 2021). Climate change, primarily generated outside the Arctic (Carter et al. 2021), is changing species compositions and lowering ecosystem resilience; this in turn has social impacts, for example, through declining food availability, requiring changes in traditional harvesting times, locations and techniques, and erosion of cultural security (AMAP 2021; ICC-Canada 2008; Steiner et al. 2019). BCS interactions feed back to limit the capability within human communities to reverse or decelerate the experienced changes (Huntington et al. 2019; Steiner 2021). For example, historical marginalization and conflicting traditional and Western lifestyles have induced trauma in Inuit communities and these likely amplify climate change related risks (Constable et al. 2022; Huntington et al. 2019; Mitchell et al. 2019). Governance plays a central role in linking drivers of change, nature and people in the Arctic context, and to achieve transformative change, representation of Inuit in governance is a critical issue (Reyes-García et al. 2022). An integrated and inclusive BCS governance approach is engrained in stated Inuit priorities that highlight the protection and advancement of their rights and interests, support for healthy ecosystems, the needs to face climate change, and support for co- produced knowledge based on research that is meaningful for Inuit communities and their governance approaches (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami 2019). Multilevel governance has allowed these priorities to be heard. For example, at the international level, the Arctic Council, which includes six permanent Indigenous participants, has amplified the voice of Arctic people affected by climate change impacts and mobilized action (Koivurova 2016). The Inuit Circumpolar Council (ICC) has 20 developed a comprehensive Inuit Arctic Policy to strengthen circumpolar unity, promote Inuit rights and interests internationally (including long-term policies that safeguard the Arctic environment), and seek full and active partnership in the development of circumpolar regions (ICC 2010). However, the Arctic covers multiple nations and, while the ICC provides a unified voice, transformative governance also needs to happen at the national or regional level and the status of transformation can vary extensively across the Arctic. For example, within Canada, Inuit governance is established nationally (Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami) and regionally, to a large part related to land-claim agreements between Inuit and the federal government. Elsewhere, potentially diverging definitions of land entitlement and ownership by Indigenous peoples and the countries can make transformative governance more challenging. The norms and rules of the Inuit nations that frame the governance of their natural resources can support both climate mitigation and adaptation efforts for instance by directly influencing regulations and agreements including through ocean-based local measures (e.g., conservation areas). While local measures may have limited roles to mitigate climate change (IPCC 2019b) they can still help to effectively address local risks and have potential co-benefits. To ensure (equitable) transformative change, co-design and co-management by Inuit and provincial governance institutions is essential. Improved adaptive governance can also be driven through co-production of knowledge, for example by Inuit involvement in climate science. Such changes would require power relations between the Inuit and external scientific communities to be more equitable. This is particularly relevant when setting research agendas and participating in research (including increased emphasis on Indigenous and local knowledge) (Loseto et al. 2018; Sidik 2022; Waugh et al. 2018), by carrying out coastal monitoring, improved and accessible weather and seasonal predictions and climate projections, and by investing in enhanced trauma- informed mental and physical health care (Pörtner et al. 2021; Trisos et al. 2021). Decolonizing the way knowledge is produced and used in the context of BCS interactions in the Arctic requires empowering Inuit communities to use, design, manage and lead science (Huntington et al. 2019). Decolonization and self-determination are necessary to having Inuit represented and their voices heard (and have weight) outside the Arctic to influence decisions that impact them indirectly given that carbon emissions are concentrated outside the Arctic, but the impacts are felt most heavily in the Arctic. Any such measures require evaluation in terms of social equity among Inuit and northern and subpolar communities, and within communities themselves. Leadership and self-determination of Inuit and Northerners in the assessment of climate-change impacts, in developing climate research needs and in implementing adaptation measures can foster transformative governance of the Arctic under a BCS nexus. This includes continuing to strengthen the capacity of Arctic and Northern communities and Indigenous peoples to acquire and apply available data and research, 21 participate in research and develop methodologies and approaches for climate change communication (Kukutai and Taylor 2016). Regional governments or community organizations need to be involved in the distribution of benefits that result from such measures. BOX 1: Examples about challenges and opportunities for transformative governance in the BCS space in forested, marine, urban and Arctic contexts. Governing REDD+ in the Brazilian Amazon Brazil has a key role in REDD+ since it harbors a large portion of Amazon forests while facing critical levels of deforestation that have accelerated in the last years. Brazil was the first country to receive results-based payments (almost 100 million USD) to reduce carbon emissions in 2014 and 2015. Brazil implemented REDD+ (UN-REDD 2018) through a special programme (Floresta+) that aimed to incentivize conservation and the recovery of native vegetation. However, after 15 years, many projects that focused on the BCS nexus remain on paper only and some funded projects coordinated by local communities have been interrupted (e.g., the Suruí Carbon Project), with questions raised around legitimacy (Nantongo 2017). The governance space has been diminished due to political change and lack of attention to equity by the Bolsonaro administration, whose current interest is confined to reinforcing the voluntary carbon market, putting into question deeper transformative approaches in the context of the Amazon through REDD+. This also runs the risk of triggering negative biophysical tipping points leading to irreversible transitions towards a less productive dry forest system. High seas fishing and governance The high seas encompass about 40% of the planet surface, rendering it the largest ecosystem in Earth. Human activities have been expanding and intensifying in the high seas, in particular fishing (Merrie et al. 2014) supported by government subsidies even when fish stocks are over-exploited and fishing becomes unprofitable (Sala et al. 2018). Because of its remoteness and vastness, operating in the high seas contributes disproportionately to carbon emissions, rendering high seas fisheries those with the highest carbon footprint (Mariani et al. 2020; Sala et al. 2021). Biodiversity in the high seas is impacted by over-exploitation of targeted and non-targeted species, climate change, pollution and other extractive activities (Bindoff et al. 2019; IPBES 2019a). A process is ongoing within the UN Law of the Sea to address governance gaps in the high seas. To succeed, this process needs to raise its ambition and aim for transformative change under the focus of the BCS nexus, rather than provide quick fixes to the current status quo. For example, in the case of governing BCS challenges, only about 5% of the Southern Ocean is protected. The Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), body responsible for Antarctic 22 marine conservation, adopted the Ross Sea Marine Protected Area in 2016. This is the w’rld's largest marine protected area and CCAMLR is the only management body to have adop’ed no-take marine protected areas (MPAs) in the high seas at the time of its designation (Brooks et al. 2021). However, the CCAMLR have not been able to agree on new MPAs in the Weddell Sea, the Antarctic Peninsula and in East Antarctica, the latter of which was first proposed in 2011 (Syal 2021). Redlining and tree planting in urban areas Tree-planting schemes are often restricted to cities with already high socioeconomic status or well- off locations within cities. This leads to social inequity in who benefits from urban tree planting policies (Pataki et al. 2021). Through redlining and institutional racism, locations with lower socioeconomic status within cities are already more sparsely planted and thus warmer and more vulnerable to heatwaves (Schell et al. 2020) The elevated temperature in these locations cascades to further economic depression due to elevated cooling costs and exacerbated health conditions. However, these interconnections provide an opportunity for transformative change with co-benefits: urban tree plantings that are diverse and implemented in different socioeconomic contexts in cities can achieve climate mitigation, biodiversity conservation and aid in social wellbeing. Inuit co-management of marine ecosystems Inuit co-development and co-management are key components of recent marine conservation efforts in the Canadian Arctic (e.g., Steiner et al. 2021). Tuvaijuittuq MPA, off the northwest coast of Ellesmere Island, is considered unique due to the presence of multi-year pack-ice. It is also recognized as a culturally and historically significant region long used by Inuit for travel and harvesting and is the only MPA specifically designated due to its sea-ice ecosystem. Likewise, the Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam MPA and Tarium Niryutait MPA have the objective to maintain habitat and support populations of key species such as beluga whales, Arctic char and ringed and bearded seals, all of which are key species for Inuit subsistence. The Government of Canada and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association recently signed an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement required for the establishment of Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) which states that “Inuit Qauijimajatuqangit (traditional knowledge) will inform future decision making for the management and protection of the NMCA and the NMCA will protect Inuit harvesting rights […] while ensuring the protection of species at risk and their habitat” (Parks Canada 2021). Co-design of conservation objectives by Inuit and federal parties allows for a right-based approach to governing conservation areas that includes Inuit active participation and represents a governance approach that can provide co-benefits in terms of protection of species and ecosystems, climate change adaptation and mitigation, Inuit livelihoods and subsistence harvesting. 23 a b c d Figure 3. Panel a: Many REDD+ projects have been targeted to the Brazilian Amazon (photo by Neil Palmer/CIAT/CIFOR); Panel b: Research vessel in Ross Sea MPA (photo by Argonne National Laboratory, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0); Panel c: Association between reduced tree cover (bottom left), increased pavement cover (bottom right), increased temperature (top right) and redlining (top left; category D), i.e., areas designated as “hazardous” for home loans by the Home Owners’ Loan Corporation in the United States (modified from Hoffmann et al. 2020); Panel d: Community of Paulatuk in Darnley Bay, Canada, which harbors the Anguniaqvia niqiqyuam Marine Protected Area (ANMPA). The case studies help both to identify BCS interactions, key opportunities and current challenges for policy interventions to catalyze transformative governance, which could be up- scaled with a BCS nexus perspective (Table 2). The examples show that existing approaches to governing the BCS nexus are largely siloed, fragmented, inconsistent, rigid and slow, which prevents them from being effective when the most serious BCS challenges are cross-cutting, feedback-loop oriented, nonlinear and potentially fast. In fact, most current governance approaches to deal with BCS interactions do not sufficiently address causes and impacts at appropriate scales, nor do they adequately engage the range of actors (from global to local) who have divergent worldviews and associated values around human-nature relations (ranging from corporations to 24 cities to IPLCs). Further, very rarely do governance approaches in the BCS space consider feedback effects and trade-offs, nor do they often aim to spark social tipping points. Table 2. Lessons from case studies regarding BCS nexus perspectives and transformative governance potential Case studies Multifunctio Integration Opportunitie Engagement Recognition nal actions across scales s for social of multiple of social recognizing and BCS tipping actors and equity BCS nexus points coalitions dimensions feedbacks elements Governing Slow to Some Limited due Limited and Limited due tropical respond to potential for to focus on mostly where to market- forest systems ecosystem jurisdictional producers not IPLCs are pricing focus with REDD+ state changes approaches consumers more and lack of across scales, involved clear BCS but currently nexus not approach widespread Fisheries Lack of focus High Limited International Limited due management on the many potential for opportunities and local to differences in the world’s BCS BCS nexus due to coalitions in economic oceans feedbacks in focused barriers from that focus on and political the design fisheries competing specific powers and policies but interests issues, but between elimination currently between limited countries, and of harmful largely countries and consistent between fisheries insufficient sectors coalitions on industrial and subsidies particularly BCS nexus small-scale industrial- fisheries scale fisheries Integrating Siloed Some High High High BCS policies approach in incremental potential via potential but potential but in cities many urban progress has continued still rather social equity institutions been made sustainability limited not 25 means regarding experiments inclusive sufficiently integrated bilateral in individual collaboration prioritized in BCS actions interactions cities and in urban urban remains between cross city planning and decision limited nexus learning and accountabilit makers’ elements upscaling, y of decision greening although making agendas breaking away from negative system inertia remain challenging Arctic Inuit National, Advancing Some Power ecosystems traditional regional and on issues of advances at relations need climate knowledge is international land regional to balance to change, and key for Arctic entitlement levels better the Inuit integrating policies are and through Inuit recognize BCS nexus increasingly ownership by traditional leadership into coordinated Indigenous knowledge and self- multifunction but largely peoples inclusion determination al actions, but lacking a needed Multi-actor of Inuit and these are still BCS nexus coordination northern mostly perspective on communities lacking international levels 5. Principles for transformative BCS governance under the BCS nexus Given the unprecedented scope and speed of existing and projected climate and biodiversity interactions and changes, transformative governance at the BCS nexus is critical, also in light of the widening implementation gap indicated by global targets to be widely missed. A reflexive approach is needed to address the failures and challenges of existing ideas and mechanisms about governance (Table 1) and to identify necessary conditions for deeper transformation. Operating with a BCS nexus approach implies recognizing biophysical limits and interactive dynamics in the 26 BC space, in addition to the distributive benefits and costs of any policy intervention across different social sectors and groups (Pörtner et al. 2021). Additionally, where policy interventions facilitate transforming social structures to create the necessary conditions for tipping positive social behavior (e.g., by shifting norms, rules and ultimately social values), they are more likely to succeed in addressing the climate and biodiversity crises. Therefore, governance systems will need to bring about behavioral changes across all relevant actors while targeting larger structural issues at the root of the coupled climate and biodiversity crisis. In other words, transformative governance requires combining short-term nudging-based policy instruments and approaches that may buy humanity some time to address the climate and biodiversity crises, with deeper institutional (including regulatory) changes and adaptive management approaches. Hence, transformative governance for the BCS nexus needs to (1) be based on understanding the specific feedbacks and interactions in the BCS space; (2) aim at integrating and redesigning institutions at different levels and scales; (3) acknowledge meaningful and equitable participation of a wide range of social actors (stakeholders and rightsholders) across coalitions; (4) have a concern for equity of outcomes at its core; and (5) build in the potential for positive social tipping points to tackle both changes in individual agency and structural resets that are needed. These conclusions come from our understanding of the specificities of the BCS nexus (Section 2), our reading of the governance literatures and their limitations (Section 3), and the case studies (Section 4), which provide a sense of these challenges and barriers as well as opportunities for reframing transformative governance to overcome them. We therefore highlight five principles that we believe policy interventions could follow to facilitate moving from reformist (incremental and shallow) to deeper transformational governance for the BCS nexus (Figure 5). These five principles are: 1. Focus on multifunctional interventions: Overall, the focus should be on investing in toolboxes of adaptive solutions (Vira and Adams 2009) that recognize the complexity of feedbacks and tradeoffs, rather than single silver bullets that rely on simplified or overly optimistic assessments of success without accounting for counterfactuals, difficulties in scaling up or unintended off-stage burdens (e.g., Bastin et al. 2019; Pascual et al. 2017) . This implies accepting solutions for multifunctionality rather than maximizing performance on single indicators (such as greenhouse gas removal or installed renewable energy) to produce multiple benefits to a diversity of actors (Brauman et al. 2020; Gren et al. 2010). For example, the failures of REDD+ to generate biodiversity and socio-economic co-benefits across the BCS nexus are in part a result of mechanisms for funding that have stressed optimizing the climate element rather than accepting higher transaction costs that would also bring benefits to both nature and people. Interdisciplinary and place-based transdisciplinary approaches that involve co-production of knowledge can help build such resilient toolboxes for multifaceted solutions 27 (Seppelt et al. 2018) as noted in the Arctic case study, where marine protected areas serve multifunctional roles for Inuit and other communities. 2. Integrate and innovate across scales: Global BCS governance is still largely tackled in silos, by specialized reports and negotiations and dedicated experts, who work in separate ministries and are assigned to separate international conventions (e.g., UNFCCC and the CBD). International secretariats are increasingly facilitating cooperation, but it is crucial to align content and messages across key reports and Multilateral Environmental Agreements that relate to biodiversity, climate or the oceans, which currently is still very limited (Smith et al. 2019; Solecki et al. 2017; Stephens 2019; van Asselt 2011). Current global governance approaches also have nation-states at their core. This limits the flexibility of cross-boundary governance models, even though drivers of vulnerability often occur at the larger regional scale (Birkmann et al. 2021) and strong and equitable responses are often grounded at the local scale, as seen in urban contexts. At the same time, while an enhanced and coordinated global system for governing BCS interactions is needed (i.e., through more integration of institutions), giving space to regional and/or local autonomy is equally important. Thus, transformative governance should be sensitive to local people´s autonomy and rights of self- determination, especially with regard to Indigenous peoples and local communities, so that they also have the capacity to decide what is meant to be just and sustainable according to their worldviews, values, and knowledge systems. The Arctic case study shows that local self- determination and use of appropriate local knowledge systems can enhance adaptive and equitable governance, but that it cannot work alone, especially when the drivers of biodiversity loss and climate change are happening elsewhere. 3. Create coalitions of support. Transformative governance requires opening political opportunities and building political will. Political opportunity can be created in part by various actors from the private sector, civil society and governments by intervening in creative ways to enable broad and focused public support (Chan et al. 2020). However, not all actors are equal in terms of their responsibilities in driving carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, nor in terms of their vulnerability to their impacts (Milner-Gulland et al. 2020). For example, the private corporate sector is a major driver of carbon emissions and biodiversity loss, and it often represents powerful and vested interests rather than collective ones aligned with the common good (IPBES 2019a; Nyström et al. 2019). As seen in the fisheries case study, one reason why subsidy reform has been advocated for many years, but rarely implemented, is precisely this power misalignment (Sumaila et al. 2021). Thus, approaches to ‘tip’ powerful private sector interests that benefit from subsidies towards more sustainability should involve strengthening the coalition of interests advocating for reform, such as by including the full range of BCS benefits in socio-economic analysis and enjoining local priorities and interests (such as food security of small-scale fishers) in political coalitions. 28 4. Ensure equitable approaches. Equity-based approaches to addressing the BC nexus can deliver multiple benefits in ways that strengthen all three dimensions. For example, policies that target the most poor and vulnerable people and that link mitigation and adaptation, such as using renewable energy to increase rural electrification or using revenues from a carbon tax to increase social assistance, could support eradication of poverty under near-term climate change (Aklin et al. 2018; Hallegatte et al. 2016). Integrating climate and biodiversity risks into the design of social protection programs can help build long-term resilience and large-scale social support, especially by the more disadvantaged social groups (Hallegatte et al. 2016). For example, public work programs can deliver biodiversity, climate and social benefits by targeting ecosystem conservation and carbon sequestration, as exemplified by the South Africa’s Working for Water Programme that restores river catchments to reduce fire risk and increase water supplies in regions prone to droughts from human-induced climate change (Norton et al. 2020; Turpie et al. 2008). Ignoring the societal dimension in interventions, such as REDD+ programs that have failed to address legal rights or benefits, diminishes joint biodiversity and climate outcomes, rather than raising them. 5. Build social tipping points. Transformative change to address the intertwined underlying drivers of the mutual climate and biodiversity challenge involves dealing with over- consumption of natural resources (including terrestrial and marine biomass), raw materials (e.g., minerals) and unsustainable energy (including fossil fuels, large-scale renewable energy infrastructure and bioenergy crops) (Pörtner et al. 2021). Capturing off-stage (diffuse, distant and delayed) impacts along commodity value-chains including leakage effects would likely have significant potential for inducing a shift across consumption and production decisions (Pascual et al. 2017). Such shift to more ecological economies will necessarily also involve a range of behavioral and institutional change. Thus, tools designed to facilitate inducing social tipping dynamics, supported by grass-root mobilizations, while at the same time anticipating BCS interactions are more likely to be successful than ones which fail to build these concepts in. This has potential consequences for the current penchant for voluntary or market-based measures, which tend to be less effective or associated with less impact (e.g., slower carbon reductions) than regulatory approaches (Auld et al. 2014). They also tend to be less equitable than interventions with inclusive processes to guarantee participation from affected communities from the start (Hill et al. 2016) or to have mechanisms to ensure fair benefit- sharing, as seen in the above REDD+ example. 29 Figure 3. Key principles can facilitate transformative governance across the biodiversity- climate-society nexus A transition towards transformative BCS governance is not only possible but potentially underway, and many local as well as national and international initiatives provide some hope, such as the EU’s Green Deal or Greta Thunberg’s ‘School Strike for Climate’, both of which have demonstrable potential to spur social tipping dynamics towards ambitious implementation. Ensuring that this transition gathers pace and deepens across local, national and international scales and organizations to foster a shared future will require transformative governance at the biodiversity-climate-society nexus. 6. Conclusions There is an urgent need to further develop and imbue ideas of transformative governance associated with different contexts, including a diversity of institutional settings, together with a biodiversity-climate-society nexus perspective. International science-policy initiatives are already aware of the need to enhance a nexus and transformative change perspective: for instance, the IPBES assessment on the multiple values of nature, which is to be complemented by forthcoming assessments on transformative change and the nexus between biodiversity, water, food and health. We hope that this effort by the global scientific community will be followed by integrating biodiversity and climate sciences through enhancing the BCS nexus perspective. In addition, we suggest that future research may focus on how the five principles outlined above could be applied in different social-ecological contexts and what synergies and tradeoffs may result among the principles. This line of research could also provide novel insights that shed light upon the types of social resistance and political lock-in processes that need to be overcome when applying the principles. In addition, the research community can help to further understand the conditions for 30 interventions to shift away from stepwise incremental change (i.e., the dominant reformist agenda) and instead focus on the conditions for interventions to become accumulative and genuinely (i.e., deeply) transformative. Acknowledgements We dedicate this article to Bob Scholes, whose knowledge, dedication and leadership contributed significantly to this manuscript, which builds from the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on Biodiversity and Climate Change and the resulting workshop report (Pörtner et al. 2021). The views expressed here, however, represent the individual views of the authors. We would like to thank the scientific steering committee of the IPBES-IPCC workshop, reviewers of the draft reports, both the IPBES and IPCC Secretariats and Technical Support Units. We are grateful to Anne Larigauderie, the executive secretary of IPBES, for her support throughout the process, and Yuka Otsuki Estrada for the visualization and development of the graphics. We would also like to thank three reviewers for their constructive comments. This work was supported by the Basque Centre for Climate Change ‘‘Unit of Excellence’’ (Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness; MDM-2017-0714); US National Science Foundation grant #1853759; US National Science Foundation DEB-1845126; Fisheries and Oceans Canada; the European Research Council under an ERC Consolidator Grant (FP7-771056-LICCI) and the ICTA-UAB “Unit of Excellence” ((Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness MdM-2019-0940); the Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) grant# 423057/2021-9; and the Carlos Chagas Filho Foundation for Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) grant# 210.164/2019. References Abreu, R. C. R., Hoffmann, W. A., Vasconcelos, H. L., Pilon, N. A., Rossatto, D. R., & Durigan, G. (2017). The biodiversity cost of carbon sequestration in tropical savanna. Science Advances, 3(8), e1701284. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1701284 Ainsworth, C. H., & Mumby, P. J. (2015). Coral–algal phase shifts alter fish communities and reduce fisheries production. Global Change Biology, 21(1), 165–172. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12667 Aklin, M., Bayer, P., Harish, S. P., & Urpelainen, J. (2018). Escaping the Energy Poverty Trap: When and How Governments Power the Lives of the Poor. MIT Press. Albert, C., Brillinger, M., Guerrero, P., Gottwald, S., Henze, J., Schmidt, S., Ott, E., & Schröter, B. (2021). Planning nature-based solutions: Principles, steps, and insights. Ambio, 50(8), 1446–1461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-020-01365-1 31 Albizua, A., Corbera, E., & Pascual, U. (2019). Farmers’ vulnerability to global change in Navarre, Spain: Large-scale irrigation as maladaptation. Regional Environmental Change, 19(4), 1147–1158. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01462-2 Alusiola, R. A., Schilling, J., & Klär, P. (2021). REDD+ Conflict: Understanding the Pathways between Forest Projects and Social Conflict. Forests, 12(6), 748. https://doi.org/10.3390/f12060748 AMAP. (2021). Arctic climate change update 2021: key trends and impacts. Summary for policy- makers arctic monitoring and assessment programme. Tromsø, Norway. https://www.amap.no/documents/doc/arctic-climate-change-update-2021-key-trends-and- impacts.-summary-for-policy-makers/3508 Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J. J. T., Pearsall, H., Shokry, G., Checker, M., Maantay, J., Gould, K., Lewis, T., Maroko, A., & Roberts, J. T. (2019). Why green “climate gentrification” threatens poor and vulnerable populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(52), 26139–26143. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1920490117 Armitage, D., de Loë, R., & Plummer, R. (2012). Environmental governance and its implications for conservation practice. Conservation Letters, 5(4), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00238.x Arneth, A., Shin, Y.-J., Leadley, P., Rondinini, C., Bukvareva, E., Kolb, M., Midgley, G. F., Oberdorff, T., Palomo, I., & Saito, O. (2020). Post-2020 biodiversity targets need to embrace climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 30882–30891. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2009584117 Asiyanbi, A., & Lund, J. (2020). Policy persistence: REDD+ between stabilization and contestation. Journal of Political Ecology, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.2458/v27i1.23493 Auld, G., Mallett, A., Burlica, B., Nolan-Poupart, F., & Slater, R. (2014). Evaluating the effects of policy innovations: Lessons from a systematic review of policies promoting low-carbon technology. Global Environmental Change, 29, 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.03.002 Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J. J., Haya, B., Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2021). Systematic over-crediting in California’s forest carbon offsets program (p. 2021.04.28.441870). https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.04.28.441870 Bai, X., Dawson, R. J., Ürge-Vorsatz, D., Delgado, G. C., Salisu Barau, A., Dhakal, S., Dodman, D., Leonardsen, L., Masson-Delmotte, V., Roberts, D. C., & Schultz, S. (2018). Six research priorities for cities and climate change. Nature, 555(7694), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-02409-z Bai, X., Surveyer, A., Elmqvist, T., Gatzweiler, F. W., Güneralp, B., Parnell, S., Prieur-Richard, A.-H., Shrivastava, P., Siri, J. G., Stafford-Smith, M., Toussaint, J.-P., & Webb, R. (2016a). Defining and advancing a systems approach for sustainable cities. Current 32 Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 23, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.11.010 Bai, X., van der Leeuw, S., O’Brien, K., Berkhout, F., Biermann, F., Brondizio, E. S., Cudennec, C., Dearing, J., Duraiappah, A., Glaser, M., Revkin, A., Steffen, W., & Syvitski, J. (2016b). Plausible and desirable futures in the Anthropocene: A new research agenda. Global Environmental Change, 39, 351–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2015.09.017 Barnes, M. L., Wang, P., Cinner, J. E., Graham, N. A. J., Guerrero, A. M., Jasny, L., Lau, J., Sutcliffe, S. R., & Zamborain-Mason, J. (2020). Social determinants of adaptive and transformative responses to climate change. Nature Climate Change, 10(9), 823–828. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0871-4 Bastin, J.-F., Finegold, Y., Garcia, C., Mollicone, D., Rezende, M., Routh, D., Zohner, C. M., & Crowther, T. W. (2019). The global tree restoration potential. In Science (Vol. 365, Issue 6448, pp. 76–79). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aax0848 Baynes, J., Lovell, G. P., & Herbohn, J. (2021). Psychological outcomes of REDD + projects: Evidence from country case studies. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 26(4), 14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11027-021-09951-8 Bennett, N. J., Roth, R., Klain, S. C., Chan, K., Christie, P., Clark, D. A., Cullman, G., Curran, D., Durbin, T. J., Epstein, G., Greenberg, A., Nelson, M. P., Sandlos, J., Stedman, R., Teel, T. L., Thomas, R., Veríssimo, D., & Wyborn, C. (2017). Conservation social science: Understanding and integrating human dimensions to improve conservation. Biological Conservation, 205, 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.10.006 Bergstrom, D. M., Wienecke, B. C., van den Hoff, J., Hughes, L., Lindenmayer, D. B., Ainsworth, T. D., Baker, C. M., Bland, L., Bowman, D. M. J. S., Brooks, S. T., Canadell, J. G., Constable, A. J., Dafforn, K. A., Depledge, M. H., Dickson, C. R., Duke, N. C., Helmstedt, K. J., Holz, A., Johnson, C. R., … Shaw, J. D. (2021). Combating ecosystem collapse from the tropics to the Antarctic. Global Change Biology, 27(9), 1692–1703. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15539 Biermann, F., Betsill, M. M., Gupta, J., Kanie, N., Lebel, L., Liverman, D., Schroeder, H., Siebenhüner, B., & Zondervan, R. (2010). Earth system governance: A research framework. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 10(4), 277–298. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10784-010-9137-3 Biermann, Frank, Michele M. Betsill, & Joyeeta Gupta. (2009). Earth System Governance: People, Places and the Planet (Science and Implementation Plan of the Earth System Governance Project. Earth System Governance Report 1, IHDP Report 20. Bonn, IHDP: T he Earth System Governance Project, 2009). 33 Bindoff, N. L., Cheung, W. W., Kairo, J. G., Arístegui, J., Guinder, V. A., Hallberg, R., Hilmi, N. J. M., Jiao, N., Karim, M. S., & Levin, L. (2019). Changing ocean, marine ecosystems, and dependent communities. In IPCC special report on the ocean and cryosphere in a changing climate (pp. 477–587). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Birkmann, J., Feldmeyer, D., McMillan, J. M., Solecki, W., Totin, E., Roberts, D., Trisos, C., Jamshed, A., Boyd, E., & Wrathall, D. (2021). Regional clusters of vulnerability show the need for transboundary cooperation. Environmental Research Letters, 16(9), 094052. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1f43 Blythe, J., Silver, J., Evans, L., Armitage, D., Bennett, N. J., Moore, M.-L., Morrison, T. H., & Brown, K. (2018). The Dark Side of Transformation: Latent Risks in Contemporary Sustainability Discourse. Antipode, 50(5), 1206–1223. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12405 Borras, S. M., & Franco, J. C. (2018). The challenge of locating land-based climate change mitigation and adaptation politics within a social justice perspective: Towards an idea of agrarian climate justice. Third World Quarterly, 39(7), 1308–1325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436597.2018.1460592 Bowler, D. E., Buyung-Ali, L., Knight, T. M., & Pullin, A. S. (2010). Urban greening to cool towns and cities: A systematic review of the empirical evidence. Landscape and Urban Planning, 97(3), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.05.006 Brauman, K. A., Garibaldi, L. A., Polasky, S., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Brancalion, P. H. S., DeClerck, F., Jacob, U., Mastrangelo, M. E., Nkongolo, N. V., Palang, H., Pérez-Méndez, N., Shannon, L. J., Shrestha, U. B., Strombom, E., & Verma, M. (2020). Global trends in nature’s contributions to people. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(51), 32799–32805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010473117 Brooks, C. M., Bloom, E., Kavanagh, A., Nocito, E. S., Watters, G. M., & Weller, J. (2021). The Ross Sea, Antarctica: A highly protected MPA in international waters. Marine Policy, 134, 104795. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2021.104795 Brulle, R. J., Carmichael, J., & Jenkins, J. C. (2012). Shifting public opinion on climate change: An empirical assessment of factors influencing concern over climate change in the U.S., 2002–2010. Climatic Change, 114(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0403- y Bruno, J. F., Côté, I. M., & Toth, L. T. (2019). Climate Change, Coral Loss, and the Curious Case of the Parrotfish Paradigm: Why Don’t Marine Protected Areas Improve Reef Resilience? Annual Review of Marine Science, 11(1), 307–334. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- marine-010318-095300 Bryndum-Buchholz, A., Tittensor, D. P., & Lotze, H. K. (2021). The status of climate change adaptation in fisheries management: Policy, legislation and implementation. Fish and Fisheries, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12586 34 Bulkeley, H., & Castán Broto, V. (2013). Government by experiment? Global cities and the governing of climate change. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(3), 361–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x Burch, S., Gupta, A., Inoue, C., Kalfagianni, A., Persson, A., Gerlak, A. K., Ishii, A., Patterson, J., Pickering, J., Scobie, M., Heijden, J. van der, Vervoort, J., Adler, C., Bloomfield, M., Djalante, R., Dryzek, J., Galaz, V., Gordon, C., Harmon, R., … Zondervan, R. (2019). New directions in earth system governance research. Earth System Governance, 1, 100006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2019.100006 Buxton, J., Powell, T., Ambler, J., Boulton, C., Nicholson, A., Arthur, R., Lees, K., Williams, H., & Lenton, T. M. (2021). Community-driven tree planting greens the neighbouring landscape. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 18239. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96973-6 Carter, T. R., Benzie, M., Campiglio, E., Carlsen, H., Fronzek, S., Hildén, M., Reyer, C. P. O., & West, C. (2021). A conceptual framework for cross-border impacts of climate change. Global Environmental Change, 69, 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2021.102307 Ceddia, M. G. (2020). Investments’ role in ecosystem degradation. Science, 368(6489), 377–377. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb5756 Chaffin, B. C., Garmestani, A. S., Gunderson, L. H., Benson, M. H., Angeler, D. G., Arnold, C. A. (Tony), Cosens, B., Craig, R. K., Ruhl, J. B., & Allen, C. R. (2016). Transformative Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 41(1), 399– 423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-110615-085817 Chaffin, B., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: Synthesis and future directions. Ecology and Society, 19(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES- 06824-190356 Chan, K. M. A., Boyd, D. R., Gould, R. K., Jetzkowitz, J., Liu, J., Muraca, B., Naidoo, R., Olmsted, P., Satterfield, T., Selomane, O., Singh, G. G., Sumaila, R., Ngo, H. T., Boedhihartono, A. K., Agard, J., Aguiar, A. P. D. de, Armenteras, D., Balint, L., Barrington-Leigh, C., … Brondízio, E. S. (2020). Levers and leverage points for pathways to sustainability. People and Nature, 2(3), 693–717. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10124 Chapin, F. S., & Díaz, S. (2020). Interactions between changing climate and biodiversity: Shaping humanity’s future. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(12), 6295–6296. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2001686117 Cheung, W. W. L., Frölicher, T. L., Lam, V. W. Y., Oyinlola, M. A., Reygondeau, G., Sumaila, U. R., Tai, T. C., Teh, L. C. L., & Wabnitz, C. C. C. (2021). Marine high temperature extremes amplify the impacts of climate change on fish and fisheries. Science Advances, 7(40), eabh0895. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh0895 35 Cheung, W. W. L., Jones, M. C., Lam, V. W. Y., Miller, D. D., Ota, Y., Teh, L., & Sumaila, U. R. (2017). Transform high seas management to build climate resilience in marine seafood supply. Fish and Fisheries, 18(2), 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12177 Cheung, W. W. L., Jones, M. C., Reygondeau, G., & Frölicher, T. L. (2018). Opportunities for climate-risk reduction through effective fisheries management. Global Change Biology, 24(11), 5149–5163. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14390 Chuenpagdee, R., & Jentoft, S. (2018). Transforming the governance of small-scale fisheries. Maritime Studies, 17(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40152-018-0087-7 Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sanjurjo, E., Munro, G. R., Hernández-Trejo, V., & Rashid Sumaila, U. (2016). Strategies and rationale for fishery subsidy reform. Marine Policy, 69, 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2015.10.001 Colenbrander, S., Dodman, D., & Mitlin, D. (2018). Using climate finance to advance climate justice: The politics and practice of channelling resources to the local level. Climate Policy, 18(7), 902–915. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2017.1388212 Colloff, M. J., Martín-López, B., Lavorel, S., Locatelli, B., Gorddard, R., Longaretti, P.-Y., Walters, G., van Kerkhoff, L., Wyborn, C., Coreau, A., Wise, R. M., Dunlop, M., Degeorges, P., Grantham, H., Overton, I. C., Williams, R. D., Doherty, M. D., Capon, T., Sanderson, T., & Murphy, H. T. (2017). An integrative research framework for enabling transformative adaptation. Environmental Science & Policy, 68, 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.11.007 Colloff, M., Wise, R., Lavorel, S., Palomo, I., & Pascual, U. (2020). Nature’s contribution to adaptation: Insights from examples of the transformation of social-ecological systems. 16, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1754919 Constable, A. J., Harper, S., Dawson, J., Holsman, K., Mustonen, T., Piepenburg, D., & Rost, B. (2022). Cross-Chapter Paper 6: Polar Regions. In: Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. Curtis, P. G., Slay, C. M., Harris, N. L., Tyukavina, A., & Hansen, M. C. (2018). Classifying drivers of global forest loss. Science, 361(6407), 1108–1111. Dahlke, F. T., Butzin, M., Nahrgang, J., Puvanendran, V., Mortensen, A., Pörtner, H.-O., & Storch, D. (2018). Northern cod species face spawning habitat losses if global warming exceeds 1.5°C. Science Advances, 4(11), eaas8821. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aas8821 Dahlke, F. T., Wohlrab, S., Butzin, M., & Pörtner, H.-O. (2020). Thermal bottlenecks in the life cycle define climate vulnerability of fish. Science, 369(6499), 65–70. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz3658 36 Deutsch, C., Ferrel, A., Seibel, B., Pörtner, H.-O., & Huey, R. B. (2015). Climate change tightens a metabolic constraint on marine habitats. Science, 348(6239), 1132–1135. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1605 Doelman, J. C., Stehfest, E., van Vuuren, D. P., Tabeau, A., Hof, A. F., Braakhekke, M. C., Gernaat, D. E. H. J., van den Berg, M., van Zeist, W.-J., Daioglou, V., van Meijl, H., & Lucas, P. L. (2020). Afforestation for climate change mitigation: Potentials, risks and trade-offs. Global Change Biology, 26(3), 1576–1591. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.14887 Duarte, C. M., Lenton, T. M., Wadhams, P., & Wassmann, P. (2012). Abrupt climate change in the Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 2(2), 60–62. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1386 Duffy, J. E. (2009). Why biodiversity is important to the functioning of real-world ecosystems. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(8), 437–444. https://doi.org/10.1890/070195 Dulvy, N. K., Fowler, S. L., Musick, J. A., Cavanagh, R. D., Kyne, P. M., Harrison, L. R., Carlson, J. K., Davidson, L. N., Fordham, S. V., Francis, M. P., Pollock, C. M., Simpfendorfer, C. A., Burgess, G. H., Carpenter, K. E., Compagno, L. J., Ebert, D. A., Gibson, C., Heupel, M. R., Livingstone, S. R., … White, W. T. (2014). Extinction risk and conservation of the world’s sharks and rays. ELife, 3, e00590. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.00590 Eddy, T. D., Lam, V. W. Y., Reygondeau, G., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Greer, K., Palomares, M. L. D., Bruno, J. F., Ota, Y., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2021). Global decline in capacity of coral reefs to provide ecosystem services. One Earth, 4(9), 1278–1285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.08.016 Elmqvist, T., Fragkias, M., Goodness, J., Güneralp, B., Marcotullio, P. J., McDonald, R. I., Parnell, S., Schewenius, M., Sendstad, M., Seto, K. C., & Wilkinson, C. (2013). Urbanization, Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services: Challenges and Opportunities : A Global Assessment. Springer Nature. https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/50063 Endlicher, W., Jendritzky, G., Fischer, J., & Redlich, J.-P. (2008). Heat Waves, Urban Climate and Human Health. In J. M. Marzluff, E. Shulenberger, W. Endlicher, M. Alberti, G. Bradley, C. Ryan, U. Simon, & C. ZumBrunnen (Eds.), Urban Ecology (pp. 269–278). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-73412-5_16 Essen, M. von, & Lambin, E. F. (2021). Jurisdictional approaches to sustainable resource use. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(3), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2299 Evans, J., Karvonen, A., & Raven, R. (2016). The Experimental City (1st ed., Vol. 1). Routledge. http://lib.myilibrary.com?id=924184 Finkbeiner, E. M., Bennett, N. J., Frawley, T. H., Mason, J. G., Briscoe, D. K., Brooks, C. M., Ng, C. A., Ourens, R., Seto, K., Switzer Swanson, S., Urteaga, J., & Crowder, L. B. (2017). Reconstructing overfishing: Moving beyond Malthus for effective and equitable solutions. Fish and Fisheries, 18(6), 1180–1191. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12245 37 Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of Social-Ecological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511 Franzke, C. L. E., Ciullo, A., Gilmore, E. A., Matias, D. M., Nagabhatla, N., Orlov, A., Paterson, S. K., Scheffran, J., & Sillmann, J. (2022). Perspectives on tipping points in integrated models of the natural and human Earth system: Cascading effects and telecoupling. Environmental Research Letters, 17(1), 015004. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ac42fd Frazão Santos, C., Agardy, T., Andrade, F., Calado, H., Crowder, L. B., Ehler, C. N., García- Morales, S., Gissi, E., Halpern, B. S., Orbach, M. K., Pörtner, H.-O., & Rosa, R. (2020). Integrating climate change in ocean planning. Nature Sustainability, 3(7), 505–516. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0513-x Garcia, B., Rimmer, L., Vieira, L. C., & Mackey, B. (2021). REDD+ and forest protection on indigenous lands in the Amazon. Review of European, Comparative & International Environmental Law, 30(2), 207–219. https://doi.org/10.1111/reel.12389 Gardner, T. A., Burgess, N. D., Aguilar-Amuchastegui, N., Barlow, J., Berenguer, E., Clements, T., Danielsen, F., Ferreira, J., Foden, W., Kapos, V., Khan, S. M., Lees, A. C., Parry, L., Roman-Cuesta, R. M., Schmitt, C. B., Strange, N., Theilade, I., & Vieira, I. C. G. (2012). A framework for integrating biodiversity concerns into national REDD+ programmes. Biological Conservation, 154, 61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2011.11.018 Ginkel, K. C. H. van, Botzen, W. J. W., Haasnoot, M., Bachner, G., Steininger, K. W., Hinkel, J., Watkiss, P., Boere, E., Jeuken, A., Murieta, E. S. de, & Bosello, F. (2020). Climate change induced socio-economic tipping points: Review and stakeholder consultation for policy relevant research. Environmental Research Letters, 15(2), 023001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6395 Gouldson, A., Colenbrander, S., Sudmant, A., Papargyropoulou, E., Kerr, N., McAnulla, F., & Hall, S. (2016). Cities and climate change mitigation: Economic opportunities and governance challenges in Asia. Cities, 54, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2015.10.010 Gras, C., & Cáceres, D. M. (2020). Technology, nature’s appropriation and capital accumulation in modern agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 45, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2020.04.001 Gren, I.-M., Svensson, L., Carlsson, M., & Bishop, K. (2010). Policy design for a multifunctional landscape. Regional Environmental Change, 10(4), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-009-0105-9 Grimm, N. B., Faeth, S. H., Golubiewski, N. E., Redman, C. L., Wu, J., Bai, X., & Briggs, J. M. (2008). Global Change and the Ecology of Cities. Science, 319(5864), 756–760. 38 Guston, D. H. (2014). Understanding ‘anticipatory governance’. Social Studies of Science, 44(2), 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312713508669 Haase, D., Kabisch, S., Haase, A., Andersson, E., Banzhaf, E., Baró, F., Brenck, M., Fischer, L. K., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Krellenberg, K., Kremer, P., Kronenberg, J., Larondelle, N., Mathey, J., Pauleit, S., Ring, I., Rink, D., Schwarz, N., & Wolff, M. (2017). Greening cities – To be socially inclusive? About the alleged paradox of society and ecology in cities. Habitat International, 64, 41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.04.005 Haase, D., Schwarz, N., Strohbach, M., Kroll, F., & Seppelt, R. (2012). Synergies, Trade-offs, and Losses of Ecosystem Services in Urban Regions: An Integrated Multiscale Framework Applied to the Leipzig-Halle Region, Germany. Ecology and Society, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04853-170322 Hajjar, R., Engbring, G., & Kornhauser, K. (2021). The impacts of REDD+ on the social- ecological resilience of community forests. Environmental Research Letters, 16(2), 024001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abd7ac Hallegatte, S., Vogt-Schilb, A., Bangalore, M., & Rozenberg, J. (2016). Unbreakable: Building the Resilience of the Poor in the Face of Natural Disasters. World Bank Publications. Harper, S., & Sumaila, U. R. (2019). Distributional impacts of fisheries subsidies and their reform. 30. Hatton, I. A., Heneghan, R. F., Bar-On, Y. M., & Galbraith, E. D. (2021). The global ocean size spectrum from bacteria to whales. Science Advances, 7(46), eabh3732. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abh3732 Hill, L. S., Johnson, J. A., & Adamowski, J. (2016). Meeting Aichi Target 11: Equity considerations in Marine Protected Areas design. Ocean & Coastal Management, 134, 112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2016.09.017 Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Cai, R., Poloczanska, E. S., Brewer, P. G., Sundby, S., Himi, K., Fabry, V. J., & Jung, S. (2014). The Ocean. In Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part B: Regional Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (pp. 1655–1731). Cambridge University Press. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., Caldeira, K., Chopin, T., Gaines, S., Haugan, P., Hemer, M., Howard, J., Konar, M., Krause-Jensen, D., Lovelock, C. E., Michelin, M., Nielsen, F. G., Northrop, E., Parker, R., Roy, J., Smith, T., Some, S., & Tyedmers, P. (2019). The Ocean as a Solution to Climate Change: Five Opportunities for Action (p. 116). World Resources Institute. http://www.oceanpanel.org/climate Horlings, L. (2016). Connecting people to place: Sustainable place-shaping practices as transformative power. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 20, 32–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.05.003 39 Hosonuma, N., Herold, M., Sy, V. D., Fries, R. S. D., Brockhaus, M., Verchot, L., Angelsen, A., & Romijn, E. (2012). An assessment of deforestation and forest degradation drivers in developing countries. Environmental Research Letters, 7(4), 044009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044009 Hubau, W., Lewis, S. L., Phillips, O. L., Affum-Baffoe, K., Beeckman, H., Cuní-Sanchez, A., Daniels, A. K., Ewango, C. E. N., Fauset, S., Mukinzi, J. M., Sheil, D., Sonké, B., Sullivan, M. J. P., Sunderland, T. C. H., Taedoumg, H., Thomas, S. C., White, L. J. T., Abernethy, K. A., Adu-Bredu, S., … Zemagho, L. (2020). Asynchronous carbon sink saturation in African and Amazonian tropical forests. Nature, 579(7797), 80–87. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2035-0 Huntington, H. P., Carey, M., Apok, C., Forbes, B. C., Fox, S., Holm, L. K., Ivanova, A., Jaypoody, J., Noongwook, G., & Stammler, F. (2019). Climate change in context: Putting people first in the Arctic. Regional Environmental Change, 19(4), 1217–1223. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-019-01478-8 Hurteau, M. D., Liang, S., Westerling, A. L., & Wiedinmyer, C. (2019). Vegetation-fire feedback reduces projected area burned under climate change. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 2838. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-39284-1 Hysing, E., & Lidskog, R. (2021). Do Conceptual Innovations Facilitate Transformative Change? The Case of Biodiversity Governance. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 8, 521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.612211 ICC. (2010). Inuit Arctic policy. Inuit Circumpolar Council, ICC International, Ottawa, Ont., Canada. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/236381814.pdf ICC-Canada. (2008). The sea ice is our highway (Inuit Circumpolar Council-Canada). Imran, H. M., Kala, J., Ng, A. W. M., & Muthukumaran, S. (2019). Effectiveness of vegetated patches as Green Infrastructure in mitigating Urban Heat Island effects during a heatwave event in the city of Melbourne. Weather and Climate Extremes, 25, 100217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2019.100217 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. (2019). Arctic And Northern Policy Framework: Inuit Nunangat. IPBES. (2019a). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science- Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. IPBES secretariat. IPBES. (2019b). Summary for policymakers of the global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (S. Díaz, J. Settele, E. S. Brondizio, H. T. Ngo, M. Guèze, J. Agard, A. Arneth, P. Balvanera, K. A. Brauman, S. H. M. Butchart, K. M. A. Chan, L. A. Garibaldi, K. Ichii, J. Liu, S. M. Subramanian, G. M. Midgley, P. Miloslavich, Z. Molnár, D. Obura, … C. N. Zayas, Eds.). IPBES Secretariat. 40 IPCC. (2014). Climate Change 2014: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (O. Edenhofer, R. Pichs Madruga, Y. Sokona, E. Farahani, S. Kadner, S. Seyboth, A. Adler, I. Baum, S. Brunner, P. Eickemeier, B. Kriemann, J. Savolainen, S. Schlömer, C. von Stechow, T. Zwickel, & J. C. Minx, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. IPCC. (2019a). Climate Change and Land: An IPCC special report on climate change, desertification, land degradation, sustainable land management, food security, and greenhouse gas fluxes in terrestrial ecosystems (P. R. Shukla, J. Skea, E. Calvo Buendia, V. Masson-Delmotte, H. O. Pörtner, D. C. Roberts, P. Zhai, R. Slade, S. Connors, R. Van Diemen, M. Ferrat, E. Haughey, S. Luz, S. Neogi, M. Pathak, J. Petzold, J. Portugal Pereira, P. Vyas, E. Huntley, … J. Malley, Eds.). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC. (2019b). IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate. (H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, M. Tignor, E. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Nicolai, A. Okem, J. Petzold, B. Rama, N.M. Weyer, Eds.). In press. IPCC. (2021). Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (V. Masson-Delmotte, P. Zhai, A. Pirani, L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu, & B. Zhou, Eds.). Cambridge University Press. In press. IPCC. (2022). Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [H.-O. Pörtner, D.C. Roberts, M. Tignor, E.S. Poloczanska, K. Mintenbeck, A. Alegría, M. Craig, S. Langsdorf, S. Löschke, V. Möller, A. Okem, B. Rama (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press. In Press. Irvine, S., & Bai, X. (2019). Positive inertia and proactive influencing towards sustainability: Systems analysis of a frontrunner city. Urban Transformations, 1(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42854-019-0001-7 Johnson, D. S., Lalancette, A., Lam, M. E., Leite, M., & Pálsson, S. K. (2019). The Value of Values for Understanding Transdisciplinary Approaches to Small-Scale Fisheries. In R. Chuenpagdee & S. Jentoft (Eds.), Transdisciplinarity for Small-Scale Fisheries Governance: Analysis and Practice (pp. 35–54). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94938-3_3 Kaltenborn, B. P., Linnell, J. D. C., Baggethun, E. G., Lindhjem, H., Thomassen, J., & Chan, K. M. (2017). Ecosystem Services and Cultural Values as Building Blocks for ‘The Good 41 life’. A Case Study in the Community of Røst, Lofoten Islands, Norway. Ecological Economics, 140, 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2017.05.003 Karlsson, M., Alfredsson, E., & Westling, N. (2020). Climate policy co-benefits: A review. Climate Policy, 20(3), 292–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1724070 Kenner, D., & Heede, R. (2021). White knights, or horsemen of the apocalypse? Prospects for Big Oil to align emissions with a 1.5 °C pathway. Energy Research & Social Science, 102049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102049 Koivurova, T. (2016). How to Improve Arctic International Governance. U.C. Irvine Law Review, 6. https://scholarship.law.uci.edu/ucilr/vol6/iss1/4 Kukutai, T., & Taylor, J. (2016). Indigenous Data Sovereignty. ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459/CAEPR38.11.2016 Labeyrie, V., Renard, D., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Benyei, P., Caillon, S., Calvet-Mir, L., M. Carrière, S., Demongeot, M., Descamps, E., Braga Junqueira, A., Li, X., Locqueville, J., Mattalia, G., Miñarro, S., Morel, A., Porcuna-Ferrer, A., Schlingmann, A., Vieira da Cunha Avila, J., & Reyes-García, V. (2021). The role of crop diversity in climate change adaptation: Insights from local observations to inform decision making in agriculture. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 51, 15–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.01.006 Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621 Lenton, T., Benson, S., Smith, T., Ewer, T., Lanel, V., Petykowski, E., Powell, T. W. R., Abrams, J. F., Blomsma, F., & Sharpe, S. (2021). Operationalising Positive Tipping Points towards Global Sustainability [Working Paper]. Global Systems Institute, University of Exeter. https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/126085 Lenton, T. M., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K., Steffen, W., & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2019). Climate tipping points—Too risky to bet against. Nature, 575(7784), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0 Leo, K. L., Gillies, C. L., Fitzsimons, J. A., Hale, L. Z., & Beck, M. W. (2019). Coastal habitat squeeze: A review of adaptation solutions for saltmarsh, mangrove and beach habitats. Ocean and Coastal Management, 175, 180–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2019.03.019 Lin, J., Hu, Y., Cui, S., Kang, J., & Ramaswami, A. (2015). Tracking urban carbon footprints from production and consumption perspectives. Environmental Research Letters, 10(5), 054001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054001 Liu, J., Hull, V., Godfray, H. C. J., Tilman, D., Gleick, P., Hoff, H., Pahl-Wostl, C., Xu, Z., Chung, M. G., Sun, J., & Li, S. (2018). Nexus approaches to global sustainable development. Nature Sustainability, 1(9), 466–476. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0135-8 42 Locke, H., Ellis, E. C., Venter, O., Schuster, R., Ma, K., Shen, X., Woodley, S., Kingston, N., Bhola, N., Strassburg, B. B. N., Paulsch, A., Williams, B., & Watson, J. E. M. (2019). Three global conditions for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use: An implementation framework. National Science Review, 6(6), 1080–1082. https://doi.org/10.1093/nsr/nwz136 Loseto, L. L., Hoover, C., Ostertag, S., Whalen, D., Pearce, T., Paulic, J., Iacozza, J., & MacPhee, S. (2018). Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas), environmental change and marine protected areas in the Western Canadian Arctic. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, 212, 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecss.2018.05.026 Lund, J. F., Sungusia, E., Mabele, M. B., & Scheba, A. (2017). Promising Change, Delivering Continuity: REDD+ as Conservation Fad. World Development, 89, 124–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.08.005 Luttrell, C., Loft, L., Gebara, M. F., Kweka, D., Brockhaus, M., Angelsen, A., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2013). Who should benefit from REDD+? Rationales and realities. Ecology and Society, 18(4). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05834-180452 Machado, F. L. V., Halmenschlager, V., Abdallah, P. R., Teixeira, G. da S., & Sumaila, U. R. (2021). The relation between fishing subsidies and CO2 emissions in the fisheries sector. Ecological Economics, 185, 107057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107057 Mallo, M., Ziveri, P., Reyes-García, V., & Rossi, S. (2019). Historical record of Corallium rubrum and its changing carbon sequestration capacity: A meta-analysis from the North Western Mediterranean. PLOS ONE, 14(12), e0223802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223802 Manes, S., Vale, M. M., & Pires, A. P. F. (2022). The effectiveness of climate action and land recovery across ecosystems, climatic zones and scales. Regional Environmental Change, 22(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021-01866-z Marbà, N., Arias-Ortiz, A., Masqué, P., Kendrick, G. A., Mazarrasa, I., Bastyan, G. R., Garcia- Orellana, J., & Duarte, C. M. (2015). Impact of seagrass loss and subsequent revegetation on carbon sequestration and stocks. Journal of Ecology, 103(2), 296–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2745.12370 Mariani, G., Cheung, W. W. L., Lyet, A., Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Velez, L., Gaines, S. D., Dejean, T., Troussellier, M., & Mouillot, D. (2020). Let more big fish sink: Fisheries prevent blue carbon sequestration—half in unprofitable areas. Science Advances, 6(44), eabb4848. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abb4848 Markard, J., Geels, F. W., & Raven, R. (2020). Challenges in the acceleration of sustainability transitions. Environmental Research Letters, 15(8), 081001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748- 9326/ab9468 43 Marselle, M. R., Lindley, S. J., Cook, P. A., & Bonn, A. (2021). Biodiversity and Health in the Urban Environment. Current Environmental Health Reports, 8(2), 146–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-021-00313-9 Marvin, S., Bulkeley, H., Mai, L., McCormick, K., & Palgan, Y. V. (2018). Urban Living Labs: Experimenting with City Futures. Routledge. McClanahan, T., Allison, E. H., & Cinner, J. E. (2015). Managing fisheries for human and food security. Fish and Fisheries, 16(1), 78–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/faf.12045 McDonald, R. I., Mansur, A. V., Ascensão, F., Colbert, M., Crossman, K., Elmqvist, T., Gonzalez, A., Güneralp, B., Haase, D., Hamann, M., Hillel, O., Huang, K., Kahnt, B., Maddox, D., Pacheco, A., Pereira, H. M., Seto, K. C., Simkin, R., Walsh, B., … Ziter, C. (2020). Research gaps in knowledge of the impact of urban growth on biodiversity. Nature Sustainability, 3(1), 16–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0436-6 McElwee, P., Thi Nguyen, V., Nguyen, D., Tran, N., Le, H., Nghiem, T., & Thi Vu, H. (2016). Using REDD+ Policy to Facilitate Climate Adaptation at the Local Level: Synergies and Challenges in Vietnam. Forests, 8(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/f8010011 McPhearson, T., Andersson, E., Elmqvist, T., & Frantzeskaki, N. (2015). Resilience of and through urban ecosystem services. Ecosystem Services, 12, 152–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2014.07.012 Megevand, C. (2013). Deforestation Trends in the Congo Basin: Reconciling Economic Growth and Forest Protection. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/12477 Merayo, E., Porras, I., Harper, S., Steele, P., & Mohammed, E. (2019). Subsidy reform and distributive justice in fisheries. 30. Merrie, A., Dunn, D. C., Metian, M., Boustany, A. M., Takei, Y., Elferink, A. O., Ota, Y., Christensen, V., Halpin, P. N., & Österblom, H. (2014). An ocean of surprises – Trends in human use, unexpected dynamics and governance challenges in areas beyond national jurisdiction. Global Environmental Change, 27, 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.04.012 Meyfroidt, P., de Bremond, A., Ryan, C. M., Archer, E., Aspinall, R., Chhabra, A., Camara, G., Corbera, E., DeFries, R., Díaz, S., Dong, J., Ellis, E. C., Erb, K.-H., Fisher, J. A., Garrett, R. D., Golubiewski, N. E., Grau, H. R., Grove, J. M., Haberl, H., … zu Ermgassen, E. K. H. J. (2022). Ten facts about land systems for sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(7), e2109217118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109217118 Milkoreit, M., Hodbod, J., Baggio, J., Benessaiah, K., Calderón-Contreras, R., Donges, J. F., Mathias, J.-D., Rocha, J. C., Schoon, M., & Werners, S. E. (2018). Defining tipping points for social-ecological systems scholarship—An interdisciplinary literature review. Environmental Research Letters, 13(3), 033005. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaaa75 44 Milner-Gulland, E. J., Addison, P., Arlidge, W., Baker, J., Booth, H., Brooks, T., Bull, J., Burgass, M., Ekstrom, J., Ermgassen, S. zu, Fleming, V., Grub, H., von Hase, A., Hoffmann, M., Hutton, J., Juffe-Bignoli, D., Kate, K. ten, Kiesecker, J., Kumpel, N., … Watson, J. (2020). Four Steps for the Earth: Mainstreaming the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/gjps6 Mitchell, T., Arseneau, C., & Lecturer, D. T. (2019). Colonial Trauma: Complex, continuous, collective, cumulative and compounding effects on the health of Indigenous peoples in Canada and beyond. International Journal of Indigenous Health, 14(2), 74–94. http://dx.doi.org/10.32799/ijih.v14i2.32251 Morita, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2018). Synergies among climate change and biodiversity conservation measures and policies in the forest sector: A case study of Southeast Asian countries. Forest Policy and Economics, 87, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2017.10.013 Myers, R., Larson, A. M., Ravikumar, A., Kowler, L. F., Yang, A., & Trench, T. (2018). Messiness of forest governance: How technical approaches suppress politics in REDD+ and conservation projects. Global Environmental Change, 50, 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.02.015 Nantongo, M. G. (2017). Legitimacy of local REDD+ processes. A comparative analysis of pilot projects in Brazil and Tanzania. Environmental Science & Policy, 78, 81–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.09.005 Nguon, P., & Kulakowski, D. (2013). Natural forest disturbances and the design of REDD+ initiatives. Environmental Science & Policy, 33, 332–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2013.04.011 Norström, A. V., Cvitanovic, C., Löf, M. F., West, S., Wyborn, C., Balvanera, P., Bednarek, A. T., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., de Bremond, A., Campbell, B. M., Canadell, J. G., Carpenter, S. R., Folke, C., Fulton, E. A., Gaffney, O., Gelcich, S., Jouffray, J.-B., Leach, M., … Österblom, H. (2020). Principles for knowledge co-production in sustainability research. Nature Sustainability, 3(3), 182–190. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-019-0448-2 Norton, A., Seddon, N., Agrawal, A., Shakya, C., Kaur, N., & Porras, I. (2020). Harnessing employment-based social assistance programmes to scale up nature-based climate action. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190127. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0127 Nyström, M., Jouffray, J.-B., Norström, A. V., Crona, B., Søgaard Jørgensen, P., Carpenter, S. R., Bodin, Ö., Galaz, V., & Folke, C. (2019). Anatomy and resilience of the global production ecosystem. Nature, 575(7781), 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1712-3 45 O’Brien, E. (2020). When Small Signs of Change Add Up: The Psychology of Tipping Points. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419884313 Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons. The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge University Press. Ostrom, E. (2010). A Long Polycentric Journey. Annual Review of Political Science, 13(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.090808.123259 Otto, I. M., Donges, J. F., Cremades, R., Bhowmik, A., Hewitt, R. J., Lucht, W., Rockström, J., Allerberger, F., McCaffrey, M., Doe, S. S. P., Lenferna, A., Morán, N., Vuuren, D. P. van, & Schellnhuber, H. J. (2020). Social tipping dynamics for stabilizing Earth’s climate by 2050. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(5), 2354–2365. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1900577117 Otto, I. M., Reckien, D., Reyer, C. P. O., Marcus, R., Le Masson, V., Jones, L., Norton, A., & Serdeczny, O. (2017). Social vulnerability to climate change: A review of concepts and evidence. Regional Environmental Change, 17(6), 1651–1662. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-017-1105-9 Palomo, I., Dujardin, Y., Midler, E., Robin, M., Sanz, M. J., & Pascual, U. (2019). Modeling trade- offs across carbon sequestration, biodiversity conservation, and equity in the distribution of global REDD+ funds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(45), 22645–22650. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1908683116 Panfil, S. N., & Harvey, C. A. (2016). REDD+ and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review of the Biodiversity Goals, Monitoring Methods, and Impacts of 80 REDD+ Projects. Conservation Letters, 9(2), 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12188 Parker, L. M., Scanes, E., O’Connor, W. A., Coleman, R. A., Byrne, M., Pörtner, H.-O., & Ross, P. M. (2017). Ocean acidification narrows the acute thermal and salinity tolerance of the Sydney rock oyster Saccostrea glomerata. Marine Pollution Bulletin, 122(1), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul.2017.06.052 Pascual, U., Garmendia, E., Phelps, J., & Ojea, E. (2018). Opportunities and Conditions for Successful Foreign Aid to the Forestry Sector. In Y. Huang & U. Pascual (Eds.), Aid Effectiveness for Environmental Sustainability (pp. 257–305). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-5379-5_8 Pascual, U., Palomo, I., Adams, W. M., Chan, K. M. A., Daw, T. M., Garmendia, E., Gómez- Baggethun, E., Groot, R. S. de, Mace, G. M., Martín-López, B., & Phelps, J. (2017). Off- stage ecosystem service burdens: A blind spot for global sustainability. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 075001. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7392 Pataki, D. E., Alberti, M., Cadenasso, M. L., Felson, A. J., McDonnell, M. J., Pincetl, S., Pouyat, R. V., Setälä, H., & Whitlow, T. H. (2021). The Benefits and Limits of Urban Tree 46 Planting for Environmental and Human Health. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, 9, 155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2021.603757 Patel, T., Dhiaulhaq, A., Gritten, D., Yasmi, Y., De Bruyn, T., Paudel, N. S., Luintel, H., Khatri, D. B., Silori, C., & Suzuki, R. (2013). Predicting Future Conflict under REDD+ Implementation. Forests, 4(2), 343–363. https://doi.org/10.3390/f4020343 Patterson, J., Schulz, K., Vervoort, J., van der Hel, S., Widerberg, O., Adler, C., Hurlbert, M., Anderton, K., Sethi, M., & Barau, A. (2017). Exploring the governance and politics of transformations towards sustainability. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 24, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.09.001 Pereira, J. C., & Viola, E. (2021). Climate Change and Biodiversity Governance in the Amazon: At the Edge of Ecological Collapse? Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429296581 Perrings, C., & Kinzig, A. (2021). Conservation: Economics, Science, and Policy. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190613600.001.0001 Phelps, J., Webb, E. L., & Adams, W. M. (2012). Biodiversity co-benefits of policies to reduce forest-carbon emissions. Nature Climate Change, 2(7), 497–503. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1462 Pickering, J., Coolsaet, B., Dawson, N., Suiseeya, K., Inoue, C., & Lim, M. (2021). Rethinking and upholding justice and equity in transformative biodiversity governance. In I. Visseren- Hamakers & M. Kok (Eds.), Transforming biodiversity governance. Cambridge University Press. Pires, A. P. F., Srivastava, D. S., Marino, N. A. C., MacDonald, A. A. M., Figueiredo-Barros, M. P., & Farjalla, V. F. (2018). Interactive effects of climate change and biodiversity loss on ecosystem functioning. Ecology, 99(5), 1203–1213. https://doi.org/10.1002/ecy.2202 Pollom, R. A., Ralph, G. M., Pollock, C. M., & Vincent, A. C. J. (2021). Global extinction risk for seahorses, pipefishes and their near relatives (Syngnathiformes). Oryx, 55(4), 497–506. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0030605320000782 Pörtner, H.-O., Karl, D. M., Boyd, P. W., Cheung, W., Lluch-Cota, S. E., Nojiri, Y., Schmidt, D. N., Zavialov, P. O., Alheit, J., Aristegui, J., & Others. (2014). Ocean systems. In Climate change 2014: Impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part A: global and sectoral aspects. Contribution of working group II to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change (pp. 411–484). Cambridge University Press. Pörtner, H.-O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Arneth, A., Bai, X., Barnes, D., Burrows, M., Chan, L., Cheung, W. L. (William), Diamond, S., Donatti, C., Duarte, C., Eisenhauer, N., Foden, W., Gasalla, M. A., Handa, C., Hickler, T., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., … Ngo, H. (2021). Scientific outcome of the IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop on biodiversity and climate change. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5031995 47 Quentin Grafton, R. (2010). Adaptation to climate change in marine capture fisheries. Marine Policy, 34(3), 606–615. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2009.11.011 Ramm, T. D., Watson, C. S., & White, C. J. (2018). Strategic adaptation pathway planning to manage sea-level rise and changing coastal flood risk. Environmental Science & Policy, 87, 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2018.06.001 Raymond, C. M., Frantzeskaki, N., Kabisch, N., Berry, P., Breil, M., Nita, M. R., Geneletti, D., & Calfapietra, C. (2017). A framework for assessing and implementing the co-benefits of nature-based solutions in urban areas. Environmental Science and Policy, 77, 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.07.008 Read, R., & O’Riordan, T. (2017). The Precautionary Principle Under Fire. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 59(5), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00139157.2017.1350005 Reddin, C. J., Nätscher, P. S., Kocsis, Á. T., Pörtner, H.-O., & Kiessling, W. (2020). Marine clade sensitivities to climate change conform across timescales. Nature Climate Change, 10(3), 249–253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-0690-7 Reyers, B., & Selig, E. R. (2020). Global targets that reveal the social–ecological interdependencies of sustainable development. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 4(8), 1011– 1019. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-020-1230-6 Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Aumeeruddy-Thomas, Y., Benyei, P., Bussmann, R. W., Diamond, S. K., García-del-Amo, D., Guadilla-Sáez, S., Hanazaki, N., Kosoy, N., Lavides, M., Luz, A. C., McElwee, P., Meretsky, V. J., Newberry, T., Molnár, Z., Ruiz- Mallén, I., Salpeteur, M., Wyndham, F. S., … Brondizio, E. S. (2022). Recognizing Indigenous peoples’ and local communities’ rights and agency in the post-2020 Biodiversity Agenda. Ambio, 51(1), 84–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-021-01561-7 Reyes-García, V., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., McElwee, P., Molnár, Z., Öllerer, K., Wilson, S. J., & Brondizio, E. S. (2019). The contributions of Indigenous Peoples and local communities to ecological restoration. Restoration Ecology, 27(1), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12894 Ripple, W. J., Wolf, C., Newsome, T. M., Galetti, M., Alamgir, M., Crist, E., Mahmoud, M. I., Laurance, W. F., & 15, 364 scientist signatories from 184 countries. (2017). World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice. BioScience, 67(12), 1026–1028. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/bix125 Robledo, C., Clot, N., Hammill, A., & Riché, B. (2012). The role of forest ecosystems in community-based coping strategies to climate hazards: Three examples from rural areas in Africa. Forest Policy and Economics, 24, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2011.04.006 48 Roches, S. D., Brans, K. I., Lambert, M. R., Rivkin, L. R., Savage, A. M., Schell, C. J., Correa, C., Meester, L. D., Diamond, S. E., Grimm, N. B., Harris, N. C., Govaert, L., Hendry, A. P., Johnson, M. T. J., Munshi-South, J., Palkovacs, E. P., Szulkin, M., Urban, M. C., Verrelli, B. C., & Alberti, M. (2021). Socio-eco-evolutionary dynamics in cities. Evolutionary Applications, 14(1), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/eva.13065 Roll, U., Jarić, I., Jepson, P., da Costa‐Pinto, A. L., Pinheiro, B. R., Correia, R. A., Malhado, A. C., & Ladle, R. J. (2021). COVID‐19 lockdowns increase public interest in urban nature. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 19(6), 320–322. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2374 Saba, G. K., Burd, A. B., Dunne, J. P., Hernández-León, S., Martin, A. H., Rose, K. A., Salisbury, J., Steinberg, D. K., Trueman, C. N., Wilson, R. W., & Wilson, S. E. (2021). Toward a better understanding of fish-based contribution to ocean carbon flux. Limnology and Oceanography, 66(5), 1639–1664. https://doi.org/10.1002/lno.11709 Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Bradley, D., Cabral, R. B., Atwood, T. B., Auber, A., Cheung, W., Costello, C., Ferretti, F., Friedlander, A. M., Gaines, S. D., Garilao, C., Goodell, W., Halpern, B. S., Hinson, A., Kaschner, K., Kesner-Reyes, K., Leprieur, F., McGowan, J., … Lubchenco, J. (2021). Protecting the global ocean for biodiversity, food and climate. Nature, 592(7854), 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03371-z Sala, E., Mayorga, J., Costello, C., Kroodsma, D., Palomares, M. L. D., Pauly, D., Sumaila, U. R., & Zeller, D. (2018). The economics of fishing the high seas. Science Advances, 4(6), eaat2504. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aat2504 Sampaio, E., Santos, C., Rosa, I. C., Ferreira, V., Pörtner, H.-O., Duarte, C. M., Levin, L. A., & Rosa, R. (2021). Impacts of hypoxic events surpass those of future ocean warming and acidification. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(3), 311–321. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559- 020-01370-3 Scheffer, M., Carpenter, S. R., Dakos, V., & van Nes, E. H. (2015). Generic Indicators of Ecological Resilience: Inferring the Chance of a Critical Transition. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 46(1), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev- ecolsys-112414-054242 Schell, C. J., Dyson, K., Fuentes, T. L., Roches, S. D., Harris, N. C., Miller, D. S., Woelfle- Erskine, C. A., & Lambert, M. R. (2020). The ecological and evolutionary consequences of systemic racism in urban environments. Science, 369(6510), eaay4497. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay4497 Schuhbauer, A., Chuenpagdee, R., Cheung, W. W. L., Greer, K., & Sumaila, U. R. (2017). How subsidies affect the economic viability of small-scale fisheries. Marine Policy, 82, 114– 121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.marpol.2017.05.013 49 Seddon, N., Chausson, A., Berry, P., Girardin, C. A. J., Smith, A., & Turner, B. (2020). Understanding the value and limits of nature-based solutions to climate change and other global challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 375(1794), 20190120. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2019.0120 Seppelt, R., Verburg, P. H., Norström, A., Cramer, W., & Václavík, T. (2018). Focus on cross- scale feedbacks in global sustainable land management. Environmental Research Letters, 13(9), 090402. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aadc45 Setyowati, A. (2020). Governing the Ungovernable: Contesting and Reworking REDD+ in Indonesia. Journal of Political Ecology, 27. https://doi.org/10.2458/v27i1.23185 Shaffer, H. B. (2018). Urban biodiversity arks. Nature Sustainability, 1(12), 725–727. Sidik, S. M. (2022). Weaving Indigenous knowledge into the scientific method. Nature, 601(7892), 285–287. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-022-00029-2 Silva, J. da, Kernaghan, S., & Luque, A. (2012). A systems approach to meeting the challenges of urban climate change. International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development, 4(2), 125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/19463138.2012.718279 Simpson, N. P., Mach, K. J., Constable, A., Hess, J., Hogarth, R., Howden, M., Lawrence, J., Lempert, R. J., Muccione, V., Mackey, B., New, M. G., O’Neill, B., Otto, F., Pörtner, H.- O., Reisinger, A., Roberts, D., Schmidt, D. N., Seneviratne, S., Strongin, S., … Trisos, C. H. (2021). A framework for complex climate change risk assessment. One Earth, 4(4), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.03.005 Smith, R., Guevara, O., Wenzel, L., Dudley, N., Petrone-Mendoza, V., Cadena, M., & Rhodes, A. (2019). Ensuring Co-benefits for Biodiversity, Climate Change and Sustainable Development. In W. Leal Filho, J. Barbir, & R. Preziosi (Eds.), Handbook of Climate Change and Biodiversity (pp. 151–166). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98681-4_9 Solecki, W., Brondizio, E. S., & Leemans, R. (2017). Editorial overview: Open issue, part I: A new era of global environmental sustainability understanding. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 23, iv–vi. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2017.03.002 Stadelmann-Steffen, I., Eder, C., Harring, N., Spilker, G., & Katsanidou, A. (2021). A framework for social tipping in climate change mitigation: What we can learn about social tipping dynamics from the chlorofluorocarbons phase-out. Energy Research & Social Science, 82, 102307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2021.102307 Steffen, W., Richardson, K., Rockström, J., Cornell, S. E., Fetzer, I., Bennett, E. M., Biggs, R., Carpenter, S. R., Vries, W. de, Wit, C. A. de, Folke, C., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Mace, G. M., Persson, L. M., Ramanathan, V., Reyers, B., & Sörlin, S. (2015). Planetary boundaries: Guiding human development on a changing planet. Science, 347(6223). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1259855 50 Steiner, N. S. (2021). Climate change impacts on sea-ice ecosystems and associated ecosystem services. Steiner, N. S., Cheung, W. W. L., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Drost, H., Hayashida, H., Hoover, C., Lam, J., Sou, T., Sumaila, U. R., Suprenand, P., Tai, T. C., & VanderZwaag, D. L. (2019). Impacts of the Changing Ocean-Sea Ice System on the Key Forage Fish Arctic Cod (Boreogadus Saida) and Subsistence Fisheries in the Western Canadian Arctic— Evaluating Linked Climate, Ecosystem and Economic (CEE) Models. Frontiers in Marine Science, 6, 179. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2019.00179 Stephens, T. (2019). The Role and Relevance of Nationally Determined Contributions under the Paris Agreement to Ocean and Coastal Management in the Anthropocene. Ocean Yearbook Online, 33(1), 250–267. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004395633_010 Streck, C. (2020). Who Owns REDD+? Carbon Markets, Carbon Rights and Entitlements to REDD+ Finance. Forests, 11(9), 959. https://doi.org/10.3390/f11090959 Sumaila, U. R., & Pauly, D. (2007). All fishing nations must unite to cut subsidies. Nature, 450(7172), 945–945. https://doi.org/10.1038/450945a Sumaila, U. R., Skerritt, D. J., Schuhbauer, A., Villasante, S., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Sinan, H., Burnside, D., Abdallah, P. R., Abe, K., Addo, K. A., Adelsheim, J., Adewumi, I. J., Adeyemo, O. K., Adger, N., Adotey, J., Advani, S., Afrin, Z., Aheto, D., Akintola, S. L., … Zeller, D. (2021). WTO must ban harmful fisheries subsidies. Science (New York, N.Y.), 374(6567), 544. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abm1680 Sumaila, U. R., Tai, T. C., Lam, V. W. Y., Cheung, W. W. L., Bailey, M., Cisneros-Montemayor, A. M., Chen, O. L., & Gulati, S. S. (2019). Benefits of the Paris Agreement to ocean life, economies, and people. Science Advances, 5(2), eaau3855. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aau3855 Supran, G., & Oreskes, N. (2021). Rhetoric and frame analysis of ExxonMobil’s climate change communications. One Earth, S2590332221002335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2021.04.014 Syal, R. (2021). Countries fail to agree on Antarctic conservation measures for fifth straight year. https://news.mongabay.com/2021/11/countries-fail-to-agree-on-antarctic-conservation- measures-for-fifth-straight-year/ Tai, T. C., Sumaila, U. R., & Cheung, W. W. L. (2021). Ocean Acidification Amplifies Multi- Stressor Impacts on Global Marine Invertebrate Fisheries. Frontiers in Marine Science, 8, 839. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2021.596644 Teichmann, F., Falker, M.-C., & Sergi, B. S. (2020). Gaming Environmental Governance? Bribery, Abuse of Subsidies, and Corruption in European Union Programs. Energy Research & Social Science, 66, 101481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101481 51 Thomson, G., & Newman, P. (2020). Cities and the Anthropocene: Urban governance for the new era of regenerative cities. Urban Studies, 57(7), 1502–1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018779769 Tripp-Valdez, M. A., Bock, C., Lucassen, M., Lluch-Cota, S. E., Sicard, M. T., Lannig, G., & Pörtner, H. O. (2017). Metabolic response and thermal tolerance of green abalone juveniles (Haliotis fulgens: Gastropoda) under acute hypoxia and hypercapnia. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 497, 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jembe.2017.09.002 Trisos, C. H., Auerbach, J., & Katti, M. (2021). Decoloniality and anti-oppressive practices for a more ethical ecology. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 5(9), 1205–1212. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-021-01460-w Turpie, J. K., Marais, C., & Blignaut, J. N. (2008). The working for water programme: Evolution of a payments for ecosystem services mechanism that addresses both poverty and ecosystem service delivery in South Africa. Ecological Economics, 65(4), 788–798. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2007.12.024 United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, & Population Division. (2019). World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. van Asselt, H. (2011). Managing the Fragmentation of International Environmental Law: Forests at the Intersection of the Climate and Biodiversity Regimes. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 44, 1205. Vira, B., & Adams, W. M. (2009). Ecosystem services and conservation strategy: Beware the silver bullet. Conservation Letters, 2(4), 158–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1755- 263X.2009.00063.x Visseren-Hamakers, I. J., Razzaque, J., McElwee, P., Turnhout, E., Kelemen, E., Rusch, G. M., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Chan, I., Lim, M., Islar, M., Gautam, A. P., Williams, M., Mungatana, E., Karim, M. S., Muradian, R., Gerber, L. R., Lui, G., Liu, J., Spangenberg, J. H., & Zaleski, D. (2021). Transformative governance of biodiversity: Insights for sustainable development. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 53, 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2021.06.002 Walker, B., Carpenter, S., Rockstrom, J., Crépin, A.-S., & Peterson, G. (2012). Drivers, ‘Slow’ Variables, ‘Fast’ Variables, Shocks, and Resilience. Ecology and Society, 17(3). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-05063-170330 Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Sustaining Ecosystems and People in a Changing World. 192. Watson, R. A., Cheung, W. W. L., Anticamara, J. A., Sumaila, R. U., Zeller, D., & Pauly, D. (2013). Global marine yield halved as fishing intensity redoubles. Fish and Fisheries, 14(4), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-2979.2012.00483.x 52 Waugh, D., Pearce, T., Ostertag, S. K., Pokiak, V., Collings, P., & Loseto, L. L. (2018). Inuvialuit traditional ecological knowledge of beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas) under changing climatic conditions in Tuktoyaktuk, NT1. Arctic Science. https://doi.org/10.1139/as-2017- 0034 Wessels, C., Merow, C., & Trisos, C. H. (2021). Climate change risk to southern African wild food plants. Regional Environmental Change, 21(2), 29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-021- 01755-5 Wunder, S., Duchelle, A. E., Sassi, C. de, Sills, E. O., Simonet, G., & Sunderlin, W. D. (2020). REDD+ in Theory and Practice: How Lessons From Local Projects Can Inform Jurisdictional Approaches. Frontiers in Forests and Global Change, 3, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/ffgc.2020.00011 Yang, Y., Tilman, D., Furey, G., & Lehman, C. (2019). Soil carbon sequestration accelerated by restoration of grassland biodiversity. Nature Communications, 10(1), 718. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-08636-w Zevenbergen, C., Fu, D., & Pathirana, A. (2018). Transitioning to Sponge Cities: Challenges and Opportunities to Address Urban Water Problems in China. Water, 10(9), 1230. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10091230 Zhang, P., Jeong, J.-H., Yoon, J.-H., Kim, H., Wang, S.-Y. S., Linderholm, H. W., Fang, K., Wu, X., & Chen, D. (2020). Abrupt shift to hotter and drier climate over inner East Asia beyond the tipping point. Science (New York, N.Y.), 370(6520), 1095–1099. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abb3368 Zhao, L., Oleson, K., Bou-Zeid, E., Krayenhoff, E. S., Bray, A., Zhu, Q., Zheng, Z., Chen, C., & Oppenheimer, M. (2021). Global multi-model projections of local urban climates. Nature Climate Change, 11(2), 152–157. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-020-00958-8 Zolch, T., Maderspacher, J., Wamsler, C., & Pauleit, S. (2016). Using green infrastructure for urban climate-proofing: An evaluation of heat mitigation measures at the micro-scale. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 20, 305–316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2016.09.011 53