There is much talk on transformative change among academics and policymakers. But how are we going to implement it? In this lecture, I'm going to introduce transformative policy frames, or in general, transformative governance. We need transformative governance to enable the transformative change necessary for achieving almost all sustainable development goals. Transformative change can be defined as a fundamental system-wide reorganization of our societies. Such fundamental change is possible if policies addresses the indirect drivers of environmental problems. In the literature, indirect drivers identified as demographic and socio-cultural for instance, human population dynamics or consumption patterns, economic and technological trade, or some innovations that can lead to degrading of ecosystems, institutions, and governance, and conflicts, and epidemics. These indirect drivers and social values embedded in them represent the underlying causes of sustainable, the challenges. Namely; land and sea use change, direct exploitation of organisms, climate change, pollution, and invasive alien species. Governance will only become transformative when it addresses these indirect drivers of underlying sustainable problems. When it applies following four policy frames such as integrative, inclusive, adaptive, and pluralist. I will explain what each of them means and give a detailed example later in the lecture. We start with integrative governance. It is operationalized with an understanding that policies may have sustainable impacts at other scales, on other issues, and in other places and sectors. In conventional governance, issues are often governed independently of each other. In contrast, for transformative governance, we use governance policy mixes across scales and across sectors by using Nexus approaches, multilevel governance, telecoupling or environmental policy, and integration and mainstreaming where we can integrate sustainable to conscience into different sectors. This is not always easy. There may not be win-win outcomes when we apply integrative governance, certain sectors may lose out more than others. In the short term, those with vested interest in unsustainable practices will need to sacrifice power. This makes a great case for our second transformative policy frame, such as the inclusive governance. Well, inclusive governance refers to enabling a wide range of rights holders, mortgage holders, and stakeholders to participate in decision-making to capture diverse values, enhance capacity, promote accountability. In conventional governance, we include stakeholders for just discussing decisions. In contrast, for transformative governance, we aim to empower those whose interests are currently not being met. We aim to include values underpinning strong sustainable to perspectives. This will require to include future generation stakes or treating indigenous peoples, local communities, a central knowledge and right holders in environmental decision-making. To enable this, they use deliberative approaches such as citizen juries, participatory action research, co-production, co-learning. Basically, in general, tools for dialogue and collaboration. Our thought too is adaptive governance. Transformative governance needs to be adaptive to reflect the complexity of environmental change. Adaptive governance is a process to enhance resilience that uses continuous opportunities for iterative learning, adjusting responses to uncertainty, and complexity over time. Key elements of this process include management with feedback loops, network policy actors, nested scales, polycentricity, and institutional and stakeholder diversity. Good examples for adaptive governance can also come from local communities living by nature. Customer institutions, for instance, in biodiversity management, have long practiced adaptive governance through local knowledge systems that are designed to evolve to respond to ecological change. You will find more information on this in your readings. Our final transformative approach links to pluralist frames. As I mentioned in the introduction, there are social values underpinning indirect drivers of unsustainability. Pluralist governance aims to rethink of these values for enabling transformation. This can be done by recognizing the multiple legitimate ways of knowing, valuing, representing nature-society relations. This means including broader set of information and indicators, including those that reflect other use on nature, well-being, and prosperity. In short, pluralist governance requires the explicit recognition of different types of societies that we are. Now, I would like to give an example of transformative governance in the context of energy transition. Conventional energy governance of fossil fuel energy systems led to land and water degradation, contribute to carbon emissions and pollution. The indirect driver that is going to be addressed here is technological, which research shows that commercial energy technologies may trigger land-use change, climate change, and pollution. We see they led to conflicts around the world. A transformative governance for energy systems then require an integrated, often cross-sectoral approach. Use of multilevel governance and environmental mainstreaming. This would show policymakers several other aspects of energy production. Energy production and use are connected by telecouplings to many other ecosystems and resource uses at multiple scales and sectors, such as forestry, biodiversity, human health, and mining. Based on these connections and identifications of trade-offs, we can design an inclusive process. We can identify stakeholders, values, value holders that can gain and lose in a potential energy transition. After conversations and collaborations with these groups and potential value holders such as the youth, we can decide on a plan and a scale of energy transition and we can ask broader questions. What type of renewable energy is possible within this area? Can we also reduce energy consumption so we don't have to build such grand scale technologies? This plan also needs to be adaptive. We may need to build new institutions that can enable social learning and that can respond to shifts in ecosystem dynamics. For instance, we observed this summer in the Mediterranean, several energy infrastructures are destroyed by the wildfires. For a long-lasting energy transformation, we have to understand the importance of these linkages such as socio-ecological linkages, intergenerational planning, and build institutions for long-term adaptive governance. By incorporating our last frame, such as the pluralist governance, we can learn an informed implementation of energy transition by engaging with different worldview holders. If you think of building a hydro-power, then it's good to consult communities around it. Can we use these rivers for hydropower? Do they have sacred meanings? Are they cultural heritage? Addressing these issues before implementation will also have to avoid conflicts, loss of time, and resources. You can further your knowledge on this topic by reading the suggested articles on this module. In summary, in this lecture, I explained to you how governance can become transformative. You can reflect on the policy instruments you use. Do they address indirect drivers? Are they adaptive, integrative, and inclusive? Can they be useful for understanding plural views of the society? Most importantly, can they be used for fostering transformative change? Thank you for listening.