Reflections on the IST 2025

It was my second International Sustainability Transitions (IST) conference, and I think it was my third time in Lisbon. After my return, a colleague asked me how the conference was. My first reaction was, “I totally forgot about the airplanes.” The airport of Lisbon is literally in the city. Thus, every two minutes, a plane flies over your head. Conversations need to stop because of the noise, and when you first see it, you wonder if the plane will crash into a building, because it flies at such a low altitude. My first trip to Lisbon was for a conference as well. It was the Conference of the International Sustainable Development Research Society (ISDRS), the first conference of my PhD. As I have written elsewhere (Biely & Chakori, 2024), I think that the transition discourse is a continuation of the development discourse. Thus, there is a red thread connecting my first stay and this one.

I attended the IST in two capacities. First, as co-host of a conference track on social acceptance, justice and the Global South. Second, as co-organizer of the Justice in Transitions Thematic Group of the Sustainable Transitions Research Network (STRN).

I very much enjoyed co-hosting a conference track (track 4). The preparations went quite smoothly. Three different track proposals were combined by the conference organizers. That meant that we had to figure out how to meaningfully combine social acceptance, the Global South, and just transitions in one track. Combining three tracks also meant that we were a team of 14 people. This could have been a messy experience, but it was not. We had no arguments, no free riding. We smoothly rewrote the track description to combine the three topics, split abstract revisions, and other tasks. Looking back, I can hardly grasp how smooth it went. That is what happens when you work with a great team of engaged people. Not all of the track co-organizers managed to attend the conference. It is a pity that some of us were not able to see the end result of this joint effort.

In late 2024, together with Kristina Bogner, Marina Novikova, and Katharina Schiller, we established the Thematic Group on Just Transitions of the STRN. STRN is a global research network focusing on sustainability transition. The organizing team of the Thematic Group regularly convenes online. Additionally, we hosted two online meetings with the research community. The IST conference offered a great opportunity for us to meet in person and connect with researchers interested in the topic of just transitions. Thus, we also used the conference to meet and connect with others.

Each of the track co-organizers had the opportunity to host one session at IST. Together with Rafael Carvalho Machado, I had the pleasure of hosting the final reflection session. The purpose of the session was to briefly summarize and reflect on what happened at each of the track 4 sessions. This format would also allow people to exchange thoughts, making it an interaction-based session. To prepare for the reflection session, I attended as many sessions of track 4 as I could. This had its downsides, as I missed other interesting sessions. This is even more so, as other tracks also hosted sessions on justice. Unfortunately, I missed those.

It is difficult to summarize track 4. The content was very diverse, thus putting it in a nutshell seems impossible. Hence, the only thing I can do is cherry-pick and highlight some presentations. While my goal was to attend all track 4 sessions, I could not, as I only arrived in the afternoon of day one. My conference experience started with the last session on the first day, which was session 4.4. In this session, I especially enjoyed the presentation Exploring the contributions of Peasant and Popular Feminism to Just Agri-Food Systems Transitions presented by Alejandra Boni. I liked that she introduced eco-socialism and eco-feminism. Thus, she introduced alternative views, which I very much appreciated. On day two in session 4.5, I want to highlight the presentation Experience matters: a political-epistemic argument for the importance of lived expertise of marginalised groups in sustainability transitions by Annelli Janssen. She not only underscored the relevance of true participatory research, and meeting people on a level playing field. She also conveyed that labelling someone as marginalized or hard to reach contributes to the perpetuation of patterns and can reduce people’s agency. In session 4.7, Carla Douglas presented on Exploring ecosocial energy transitions in the Global North and South: Insights from Chile and the UK. I enjoyed this because it compared two cases across the globe, from very different contexts. Yet, similarities regarding injustice could be found. As she outlined, energy poverty is not a thing of the past in the Global North. On day three, Angela Caredda presented her research on Envisioning just circularity: A scoping review of normative justice claims in circular economy literature (session 4.8). This presentation made clear that justice topics are not only relevant for the energy transition, but for other transitions as well.

Some conclusions that can be drawn from these presentations:

·       Alternative and critical views are still underrepresented in the IST/STRN community. I missed presentations using post-colonial, feminist, or eco-socialist views. Thus, the theoretical lenses used remain based on Eurocentric, technocratic, and market-based views.

·       While several studies on Global South cases were presented, case comparisons across the globe were under-represented. For such comparisons, it would be great not to understand the Global North as the role model, but to find similarities and differences between cases. It would be insightful to not only outline how the Global South can learn (leapfrog) from the Global North, but also how the Global North could learn from the Global South (practically, as well as theoretically).

·       The topic of energy transitions dominates the IST discourse. Yet, other topics such as circular economy are becoming more prevalent. Still, it seems that first technofix and market-based lenses are used before these topics are explored through other lenses, such as justice. It seems as if we are only in a second step realizing that the technology alone will not solve the issue.

·       Within track 4, the discourse around responsible research and the role of researchers was under-represented. There were almost no touching points on questions such as how do we design research to be inclusive? Or how do we design research processes that are not extractive?

In session 4.9, we brought insights and reflections from track 4 session hosts together. Many of these reflections critically explored the limitations of the sessions and the conference overall in terms of content, participants/presenters, and contents. We questioned whether a conference on sustainability transitions should not embrace alternative formats that are more interactive and employ artistic elements. A concrete question was what space non-humans get at the conference, and that the inclusion of this stakeholder group would demand novel conference formats (e.g., parliament of things). I was also wondering to what extent we miss on engaging with civil society? This might also require alternative formats. It would further ask us to communicate in ways that are easier to grasp. We would have to abstain from jargon and expert terms. This could be a great exercise in science communication and could help communicate the relevance of science for society. This is further connected to the question of who is invited to speak on a panel or keynote. Why not invite activists, civil society, representatives from indigenous peoples, etc. Why are we only inviting high-profile people? Even more so, if these high-profile people tell us that the solutions need to come from the next generation. Within track 4, we missed fundamental debates about what justice, equity, and fairness mean and who ought to define these terms. We missed discussions on power and agency, and we missed a greater diversity of views. There were way too few contributions employing an eco-socialist, eco-feminist, post-colonial, or critical theory lens. Degrowth was not thematized, and when it came up during the panel, it was called a taboo. We were wondering why we are still observing a dominance of technofixes and market-based narratives. To what extent is this connected to dominant views within the community or central institutions such as scientific journals?

We were the organizers of track 4; thus, to a certain degree, we could have steered the formats. If I remember correctly, though, we did not get suggestions for workshops or alternative formats. Furthermore, we had discussions about this, which indicated how we are also locked in. Researchers can only participate in conferences if they contribute in one way or the other. Contributing means either presenting or organizing something. A workshop means that fewer people can contribute and thus, it takes space from others. Thus, the legitimization for attending conferences finally needs to be altered to allow for alternative formats.

Another discussion we had was about the structure of track 4 itself. Track 4 was a combination of 3 topics. We were wondering what the rationale was for forcing three topics into one? Several tracks had sessions and presentations on justice. Thus, there would have been enough presentations to fill the track. Further, justice was a ubiquitous topic, also regularly coming up in the plenary discussions. With justice being so prevalent, should it not get more space? Combining three topics also made us, the co-hosts, wonder if we could give each topic enough attention? E.g., the Global South topic would have deserved its own track. Thus, we posed the question: Did we do the Global South topic justice by merging it with two other topics?

Further, there are some reflections on the panel discussions and keynotes. I did not see the first keynote as I came late to the conference. Though when I arrived, people expressed that they did not quite like the first keynote. Everyone stated that it was not nice to see dominantly white men taking over the stage. I also repeatedly heard that the keynote was outdated and did not quite reflect the spirit of the community. I rewatched the keynote to build my own judgment. As far as I can judge, from a scientific standpoint, the keynote was fine. Sure, it focused on technological innovation, which can be interpreted as a weakness. Though, I would state that this represents the roots of STRN transitions research. Fortunately, we see this changing slowly. At least the keynote speaker referred to the issue of injustice. The Q&A revealed, I think, where the frustration peaked. The keynote speaker stated that it is up to the next generation to fix the issues. I understand why this makes people furious. One has to wonder why people in positions of power tell others, who are in less powerful positions, to change things. It is frustrating…

The other days, there were panel discussions, which were not dominated by old, white men. Yet, one had to roll with the eyes several times because of certain statements. It is understandable to hear certain statements from a national bank CEO. But from leading climate scientists and from transition researchers? One would expect more. Apparently, the panelists were exhibits of ivory tower dwellers. For example, we learned that young people only want to be YouTube stars and live on an island. Another statement was that the current times of crisis are normal and that we do not have to worry. I personally was also disappointed that degrowth was presented as taboo. At least one of the panelists added some explanation to that statement.

Overall, I think it was a good conference. It was great to see so much interest in the topic of just transitions. That gives hope! It was great to meet fellow researchers in person to share our passion, hope for the future, but also our worries and frustrations.

Reference:

Biely, K., & Chakori, S. Sustainability transition theories: Perpetuating or breaking with the status quo. Sustainable Development, n/a(n/a). https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.3101