Knowledge products, including synthesis of the applicability of behaviour science and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity into relevant EU and global processes. Report No D4.4 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B KNOWLEDGE PRODUCTS, INCLUDING SYNTHESIS OF THE APPLICABILITY OF BEHAVIOUR SCIENCE AND INTERSECTIONALITY FOR PRIORITISING BIODIVERSITY INTO RELEVANT EU AND GLOBAL PROCESSES Agro bietsity - солтий individual ud Jros y ady there BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE PLANET4B 1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D4.4 Deliverable title Knowledge products, including synthesis of the applicability of behaviour science and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity into relevant EU and global processes. Task leader UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description The findings of the applicability of behaviour science and intersectionality along with the identified transformative pathways aim to feed into relevant intergovernmental processes by exploring and outlining entry points for prioritising biodiversity and enhancing policy coherence (e.g., aligning the European Green Deal, the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, and SDG commitments) along with other EU and global projects. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 16/10/2025 Authors: Ana Lambert, Ceire Booth, Thiago Uehara, Noor Noor, Ruth Fletcher (UNEP-WCMC) 0.2 Draft 24/10/2025 Reviewers: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU), Alex Franklin (CU), Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG), Sandra Karner (IFZ) 1.0 Final 05/11/2025 Authors: Ana Lambert, Ceire Booth, Thiago Uehara, Noor Noor, Ruth Fletcher (UNEP-WCMC) 1.1 Final 10/11/2025 Reviewer: Edit Hunyadi (MLU) Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Alphabetical order: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alexander E. Aas-Hansen (OOF); Alex Franklin (CU); Amelie Dakoure (CU); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); David N. Barton (NINA); David Steinwender (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Geraldine Brown (CU); György Pataki (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Johan Hval (OOF); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Katharina Santer (FUG); Lindy Binder (CU); Liene Hennig (FiBL); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Mahsa Bazrafsan (FiBL); Mariana Matoso (CGE); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Robert Home (FiBL); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Subash Ludhra (DC); Tuva Beyer Broch (NINA); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Vladislav Artiukhov (CGE); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA) Recommended citation Lambert A., Booth, C., Uehara, T., Noor, N. & Fletcher, R. (2025). Knowledge products, including synthesis of the applicability of behaviour science and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity into relevant EU and global processes. Report No D4.4 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17251096 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the PLANET4B case study partners whose extensive research throughout the course of the project and direct expert input has been instrumental for the developing the policy briefs (knowledge products) contained in this deliverable. Given that this deliverable is the culmination of the research that has taken place across all PLANET4B work packages, the authors would also like to thank all task leads and task contributors whose research has paved the way for this final output. The authors would also like to thank the expert participants who attended the validation workshops for Task 4.3 whose willingness to share their knowledge, ideas and feedback helped to improve and refine the knowledge products included in this deliverable. Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time and thoughtful feedback throughout the drafting process. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CGE Culture Goes Europe CU Coventry University DC DADIMA CIC DG AGRI Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development DG CLIMA Directorate-General for Climate Action DG FISMA Directorate-General for Financial Stability, Financial Services and Capital Markets Union DG JUST Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers DG GROW Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs DG TRADE Directorate-General for Trade DG SANTE Directorate-General for Health and Food Safety EEA European Environment Agency ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group EU European Union FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening HM His Majesty's IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature KM GBF Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development PLANET4B Understanding Plural values, Intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, Behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision-making RU Radboud University vi SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UK United Kingdom UNEP-WCMC United Nations Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa WWF World Wildlife Fund 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 1.1 PLANET4B’s focus on plural values, behaviours, intersectionality and leverage points for transformational change in biodiversity-related decision-making .............. 4 1.2 How this report is structured ...................................................................................... 4 2 How Task 4.4 builds on previous Tasks and Deliverables from Work Packages 1 – 4 ............................................................................................................................. 5 3 Methodological approach for developing the five knowledge products ........... 8 3.1 Synthesising the results of the project and developing “policy options” .............. 9 3.2 Selecting suitable formats for each of the knowledge products ........................... 10 3.3 Validation with external experts ............................................................................... 12 3.4 Iterative refinement .................................................................................................... 12 4 Five knowledge products for prioritising biodiversity in relevant EU and global processes ................................................................................................................. 13 5 Discussion ............................................................................................................. 15 5.1 Overview of knowledge products ............................................................................. 15 5.2 Cross-cutting discussion: Leverage points for transformative change ............... 17 5.3 Implications for policy and practice ......................................................................... 18 6 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 18 References ................................................................................................................ 21 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 24 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 24 Annex 1 ..................................................................................................................... 25 Annex 2 - Resilient Trade Beyond Traceability: Strengthening the EU–Brazil Partnership for Nature and People ......................................................................... 27 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 27 Background: Policy context and political dynamics .................................................... 27 Evidence and analysis ..................................................................................................... 28 Challenges and policy options ....................................................................................... 28 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 30 References ........................................................................................................................ 31 2 Annex 3 - Supporting seed diversity for resilient EU agriculture: A policy perspective ............................................................................................................... 32 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 32 Current policy measures ................................................................................................. 32 Evidence and analysis ..................................................................................................... 33 Challenges and policy options ....................................................................................... 33 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 36 References ........................................................................................................................ 37 Annex 4 - Fashion forward: Policy pathways for a biodiversity-positive transformation of the EU fashion sector ............................................................... 38 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 38 Current policy measures ................................................................................................. 38 Evidence and analysis ..................................................................................................... 39 Challenges and policy options ....................................................................................... 39 Cross-cutting principle: Justice, inclusion and plural pathways of change .............. 42 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 42 References ........................................................................................................................ 43 Annex 5 - Private finance and cognitive biases: A Theory of Change for aligning financial actor behaviour with global biodiversity goals ................. 44 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 44 Evidence and analysis ..................................................................................................... 44 Background ...................................................................................................................... 45 Key findings and policy options ..................................................................................... 46 References ........................................................................................................................ 49 Annex 6 - Enabling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe: From values to action – A synthesis for policy and implementation under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 ......................................................... 50 Executive summary .......................................................................................................... 50 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 51 Evidence and analysis ..................................................................................................... 53 Enabling transformative change ..................................................................................... 54 Implementation options ................................................................................................... 61 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 66 References ........................................................................................................................ 68 3 Executive summary • Biodiversity loss is intricately connected to social identities and values, attitudes and behaviours, institutional structures, and the complex interplay between individuals, institutions and systems of environmental governance. • Environmental governance and policy play a critical role in setting the parameters in which values, behaviours, attitudes and decisions about biodiversity are shaped at all levels. Policies at the EU and global level are therefore critical levers for unlocking transformative changes in the ways that decisions about biodiversity are made, to improve outcomes for biodiversity and social wellbeing. • Task 4.4 involved synthesising the results of the PLANET4B project in the form of five knowledge products for policy audiences. The knowledge products contained in this deliverable provide both sector-specific policy options for improving biodiversity prioritisation in decision-making, and options for strengthening the use of behavioural science and intersectionality in EU and global policy processes. • The knowledge products highlight that transformative change for biodiversity requires coordinated action by multiple actors across system levels. Actions include adjusting incentives, redesigning institutions, and shifting societal intent. Crucially, biodiversity-related actions should be grounded in behavioural insights, inclusive governance, and cross-sectoral coherence to achieve equitable and lasting positive change for biodiversity. • Policy can play a critical role in scaling transformative change for biodiversity by creating the right “enabling conditions” for this to be possible. Success also depends on continued collaboration between researchers, policymakers, and practitioners to test enabling conditions, monitor outcomes, and scale interventions that embed equity, participation, and systemic thinking across sectors and regions. 1 Introduction The scientific evidence is clear: Biodiversity is declining faster than ever before (WWF, 2024; IPCC, 2023; IPBES, 2019). In the European Union (EU), biodiversity has suffered major losses over recent decades. For example, farmland bird populations have dropped by around 40% since 1990, and more than four out of five natural habitats assessed under the Habitats Directive are now in poor or bad condition (EEA, 2025; 2023; EEA, 2020). The biodiversity crisis is not only about nature; it is also about people. The current state of biodiversity reflects how societies produce, consume, and govern natural resources. Human actions are both the cause of biodiversity loss and the key to reversing it. Tackling this crisis requires profound shifts in how institutions are organised, how behaviours are shaped and how people understand their relationship with nature (Díaz et al., 2018; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). As the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment (2024) makes clear, fundamental and systemic change is essential to reverse current trends. It calls for a rethinking of how societies value and relate to the natural world, recognising that well-being, justice and care for the planet are interconnected dimensions of sustainable prosperity (Uehara, 2024). 10 options”. This step was important for verifying that the outcomes of UNEPWCMC’s synthesis exercise was accurate and reflective of the extensive case study results. For the policy note on “Enabling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe”, the process of synthesising the project results involved the following activities: • Reviewing project documents and extracting key findings. In the early stages of developing the policy note, UNEP-WCMC gathered information from multiple project sources to begin mapping the project results relating to values, behavioural change, intersectionality and transformational change for biodiversity. Whilst this review focussed on synthesising results from both the intensive place-based and extensive sector-specific case studies, particular attention was given to synthesising the results of the intensive place-based case studies to better understand what their empirical case study research had revealed about the role of values, behaviours and intersectionality for shaping how decisions about biodiversity are made. The sources of information reviewed included the systems mapping, leverage point analysis and impact mapping in Deliverable 3.2 and the case study fact sheets which included additional detail on the interventions that each intensive case study piloted in their Learning Communities. In particular, Deliverable 3.2 and Deliverable 3.3 (which was produced in month 36) included important insights about the” key enabling conditions” that were critical to the stories of change in each of the Learning Communities. • Identifying policy options for enabling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe. Using the list of “key enabling conditions for change” that UNEP-WCMC synthesised from the various project sources, UNEP-WCMC drafted a series of “policy options” for enabling transformative change in Europe. These “policy options” were also informed by the policy mapping conducted as part of Task 4.1, to ensure they were policy relevant and widely applicable to different policies. The “policy options” focus on communicating actions that would help to reduce the barriers and strengthen the “enabling conditions” for scaling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe. • Validating the draft policy note with PLANET4B partners. Once UNEPWCMC had developed a first draft of the policy note using the “policy options” identified in the previous step, the authors of Deliverable 3.2 and Deliverable 3.3 were invited to provide their input and feedback on the draft policy note. Given the authors of Deliverable 3.2 and Deliverable 3.3 worked very closely with the case study partners and had a good “birds-eye view” of the case studies’ overall results, their feedback on the draft policy note was important to ensure that the messages and “policy options” in the policy note were consistent with their understanding and analysis of the case study results. 3.2 Selecting suitable formats for each of the knowledge products Each of the five PLANET4B knowledge products was designed in a format suited to its purpose, content and intended audience. The guiding principle was to ensure that findings were communicated in a way that was both scientifically robust and accessible to policy audiences, while recognising that different policy domains require different levels of detail, framing and narrative. 11 Sector-specific policy briefs The four sector-specific policy briefs were designed for specialist policy audiences responsible for designing, implementing and monitoring biodiversity-related and sectoral measures within the EU. Following established guidance on writing for policy audiences (e.g. Durham et al., 2014), the briefs were developed to be concise, precise and tailored: • Concise: each brief is limited to around 5-8 pages. • Precise: messages and “policy options” are presented clearly, in a nonprescriptive but actionable way. • Tailored: language and framing are adapted to the relevant sectoral and institutional context. The trade, fashion and agriculture briefs follow a classical policy-brief format. Each opens with an introduction that sets out the sector-specific problem from an EU policy perspective, provides an overview of existing measures, and summarises the analysis underpinning the policy options. This is followed by a section outlining the main challenges and related policy options, and a short concluding reflection on the implications for EU and international policy. The finance brief adopts a slightly different structure to reflect the evolving EU policy landscape for the finance sector, particularly the European Commission’s recent proposals to simplify sustainability reporting and due-diligence requirements. In this case, the team used a theory-of-change format to convey policy options. This approach was considered more effective for illustrating how behavioural and cognitive factors shape financial decision-making and for showing the pathway of change needed to align financial systems with global biodiversity goals. Beneath the theory of change, the brief presents specific policy options for EU actors to enable this transition. Policy note The policy note synthesises findings from across the PLANET4B project, translating three years of research on plural values, intersectionality, leverage points and behavioural change into policy-relevant insights for scaling transformative change. Its target audiences are national and EU policy actors responsible for implementing biodiversity strategies, such as the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the Nature Restoration Regulation and national biodiversity strategies and action plans, as well as those shaping research and innovation programmes under Horizon Europe. Because this product integrates multiple strands of research rather than addressing a single sector, a hybrid format was chosen – combining features of a policy brief with elements of a research note. This allowed the authors to maintain the concise and accessible style of a policy brief while providing sufficient space for conceptual synthesis, cross-sectoral analysis and actionable policy insights. The format was designed to capture the depth of PLANET4B’s findings on transformative change while remaining readable for practitioners and policymakers. In this way, the policy note complements the four sector-specific briefs: where the briefs offer focused options for action in individual domains, the note provides an overarching narrative that connects these findings and highlights enabling conditions for transformation across governance levels. Together, they form a coherent suite of 12 knowledge products – short, applied and sector-specific briefs supported by a crosscutting synthesis that links biodiversity, well-being, accountability and care for people and nature. 3.3 Validation with external experts Task 4.3 “Validating transformative methods and pathways with policy makers and businesses” fed into the development of the five knowledge products in Deliverable 4.4. The precise aim of the workshops was to validate the relevance, clarity, and policy feasibility of the draft knowledge products with representatives from policy, business, research, and civil society. UNEP-WCMC organised six validation workshops under Task 4.3. Four of them focussed on validating each of the sector-specific policy briefs and two of the workshops focussed on validating PLANET4B’s cross-cutting results on the role of values, behavioural change and intersectionality for influencing how decisions about biodiversity are made. These workshops brought together diverse actors with complementary expertise, including policymakers from EU institutions and member states, industry representatives, NGO practitioners, and academic researchers. The workshops involved structured group discussions using variations on the following questions: • Relevance: Do the challenges described accurately reflect the systemic factors driving biodiversity loss? • Feasibility: Are the proposed policy options realistic given current political and institutional realities? • Clarity: Is the language accessible and is the framing compelling for nonspecialist policy audiences? • Utility: Do these messages target the right policy instruments? Could they inform additional policies, how and when? The validation workshops helped to uncover new insights that were critical to improving the quality and robustness of the knowledge products. For example, outcomes of the discussion included suggestions for improving framing and terminology to better tailor the messages to the target audiences, suggestions for refining the list of “policy options” to capture additional critical points, and suggestions for better aligning the “policy options” with current and ongoing policy processes. Detailed reports of each of the validation workshops, including a summary of the outcomes and how it fed into Deliverable 4.4 can be found in Deliverable 4.3 (Lambert et al., 2025). 3.4 Iterative refinement UNEP-WCMC worked with each of the extensive sector-specific case studies to refine and improve the sector-specific policy briefs throughout the drafting process. The policy note also underwent iterative refinements following inputs from the authors of Deliverable 3.3, given that the policy note built on their analysis. Final edits and improvements were made to each of the knowledge products based on the inputs received during expert validation workshops in Task 4.3. Given the strong collaboration 13 throughout the development process, the case study leads and the authors of Deliverable 3.3 are recognised as co-authors of their respective policy briefs. 4 Five knowledge products for prioritising biodiversity in relevant EU and global processes Deliverable 4.4 consists of five knowledge products designed to facilitate the integration of biodiversity into EU and global policy processes. Four sector-specific policy briefs for the trade, agriculture, finance, and fashion sector identify policy options for unlocking transformative change for biodiversity in each of those sectors. The fifth knowledge product, a cross-cutting policy note synthesises the results of the 11 case studies and provides policy options for how values, intersectionality, behavioural change, and transformational change can be better applied in policy contexts to unlock transformative change for biodiversity. Table 1 provides an overview of the five knowledge products. Table 1. Overview of the five knowledge products in Deliverable 4.4. Knowledge Product Sector/ Theme Product based on what case study Case study type focus Intended target audience(s) Beyond Traceability: Strengthening the EU–Brazil Partnership for Nature and People (Annex 2) Trade Trade and Global Value Chains between Brazil and the Netherlands Extensive 1) EU policy actors involved in developing and implementing policies that have biodiversity-related implications for the trade sector e.g. (DG TRADE, DG SANTE, DG AGRI, DG ENV) 2) Policy actors at the EU Member State level responsible for managing national trade-related policies, in particular in the Netherlands Supporting Seed Diversity for Resilient EU Agriculture: A Policy Perspective (Annex 3) Agriculture Enhancing agrobiodiversity through local seed networks Extensive 1) EU policy actors involved in developing and implementing policies for the agriculture sector and policies that affect the agriculture sector e.g. (DG AGRI, DG SANTE, DG ENV) 2) Policy at the EU Member State level responsible for managing 14 national agricultural policies Addressing the Textile Industry’s Impact on Biodiversity in Europe and Beyond: Policy Pathways for the EU (Annex 4) Fashion & textiles “From EgoSystem to EcoSystem” in the Fashion Industry in Italy Extensive 1) EU policy actors involved in developing and implementing policies for the fashion and textile sector e.g. (DG ENV, DG GROW) 2) Policy at the EU Member State level responsible for managing national policies relating to the production, consumption and management of fashion, textiles and apparel Private Finance for Biodiversity and Cognitive Biases: Theory of Change for Aligning Financial Actor Behaviour with Global Biodiversity Goals (Annex 5) Finance Sustainable investment behaviour in the financial sector (Global-EUNorway) Extensive 1) EU policy actors involved in developing and implementing policies that have biodiversity-related implications for the finance sector e.g. (DG FISMA, DG JUST, DG GROW, DG ENV) 2) Policy actors at the EU Member State level responsible for managing national financial regulation Enabling Transformative Change for Biodiversity in Europe: From Values to Action (Annex 6) Crosscutting PLANET4B topics All case studies All case studies 1) Policy actors responsible for implementing biodiversity strategies 2) Policy actors responsible for managing research and innovation programmes Each of the five knowledge products are included Annex 2 – Annex 6 of this report. Each of the sector-specific policy briefs are also being professionally designed and disseminated as stand-alone outputs to their relevant policy audiences in November 2025. The text in the designed knowledge products is the same as the knowledge products in this report (Annex 2 – Annex 6). The choice to professional design the knowledge products for communication and dissemination aligns with the European Commission’s guidance on dissemination, which defines it as “the public disclosure of results not only by scientific publications but via any pertinent medium.” Dissemination 15 means “making results available to the people that can best make use of them, e.g. the scientific community, industry, policymakers, and more” (European Commission, n.d.). Targeted communication and dissemination of the knowledge products to their target policy audiences will be conducted throughout November – December 2025. UNEP-WCMC will also remain alert to other opportunities to communicate and disseminate the knowledge products, such as at relevant policy events, through online and in-person policy consultations, and through other science-policy fora. 5 Discussion 5.1 Overview of knowledge products This deliverable brings together five policy knowledge products developed under the PLANET4B project. Each addresses sector-specific challenges and opportunities for policy intervention to advance transformative change for biodiversity. Together, they highlight how shifts in governance, incentives and social norms can help align economic activity with biodiversity, well-being and care for people and nature. Trade and global value chains The policy brief Resilient Trade Beyond Traceability (Annex 2) identifies four interlinked challenges. These include fragmented policy coherence between trade, development and environment; limited participation and poor recognition of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities; insufficient alignment of market incentives with wellbeing; and weak accountability mechanisms. Its policy options include embedding binding provisions on biodiversity and human rights in trade agreements, expanding cooperation under the Common Agricultural Policy to support sustainable livelihoods and using trade dialogues to reinforce equitable transitions. These measures would enable trade-related policies to promote fairness, resilience and ecosystem integrity rather than perpetuate deforestation and inequality, demonstrating the value of shared accountability and responsibility beyond borders. Seed diversity and agrobiodiversity The policy brief Supporting Seed Diversity for Resilient EU Agriculture (Annex 3) highlights barriers that restrict diverse, locally adapted seeds from circulating within formal markets. Current rules favour uniform commercial varieties and overlook the contributions of small-scale farmers and community seed custodians. Policy options include proportionate rules under the forthcoming Plant Reproductive Material Regulation, exemptions for conservation and farmer-bred varieties, and collaboration between formal and informal seed systems. Implementing these measures would safeguard genetic diversity, strengthen resilience and uphold farmers’ rights as recognised under international frameworks — linking biodiversity stewardship with social equity and collective care. 16 Fashion and textiles The policy brief Fashion Forward (Annex 4) examines the structural pressures that keep fashion consumption and production on unsustainable trajectories. Key challenges include overproduction, resource-intensive supply chains, lack of biodiversity metrics and weak enforcement of circularity measures. The brief proposes five policy options: setting durability and repairability standards, introducing sufficiency targets for textile volumes, aligning circular-economy and biodiversity goals, curbing ultra-fast-fashion marketing and embedding repair and reuse infrastructure in cohesion funding. Together, these options would shift the sector from growth-driven models toward sufficiency, care and well-being within planetary boundaries. Finance and investment The brief Private Finance for Biodiversity and Cognitive Biases (Annex 5) identifies the challenge that biodiversity is rarely valued or integrated into investment decisions. Limited data, short-term incentives and cognitive biases, such as status-quo and loss aversion, hinder alignment of private financial flows with nature-positive outcomes. Policy options include strengthening biodiversity disclosure standards, integrating nature risk into prudential regulation, and building investor literacy through publicprivate partnerships. The brief argues that reframing biodiversity as financially material can foster accountability and long-term responsibility in the financial system. Transformative implementation of biodiversity policy The synthesis research note Enabling Transformative Change for Biodiversity in Europe: From Values to Action (Annex 6) provides a cross-cutting analytical lens that connects the sectoral briefs. It explains why some interventions progress while others face resistance, revealing how sector-specific challenges reflect wider governance conditions. Short-term incentives in finance or limited compliance in trade point to weak reflexivity and coherence, while greater participation in seed governance or accountability in textiles show how inclusion and behavioural insight enable progress. The note identifies five enabling conditions for durable change: justice and inclusion, learning and reflection, collaboration and coherence, adaptive governance and agency and leadership, and demonstrates that change endures when individual agency is supported by institutional learning and coordination mechanisms. Inclusion and behavioural insights emerge as core enablers, helping create policy environments where people feel empowered, recognised and able to deliver change. When supported by networks and institutional backing, these factors amplify collective action and strengthen the social foundations of well-being for all. These insights are particularly relevant as the EU and global biodiversity agendas move from commitment to implementation. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is being rolled out, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 is entering its midterm review, and major EU regulations (such as the Plant Reproductive Material 17 Regulation, the Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation and the EU Deforestation Regulation) are under negotiation or early implementation. PLANET4B’s findings contribute to these policy windows by showing how behavioural, institutional and social dimensions can strengthen the design and uptake of biodiversity-related measures. Overall, the knowledge products indicate that biodiversity governance in Europe is gradually becoming more integrated and inclusive. PLANET4B’s contribution lies in linking behavioural and intersectional approaches to practical policy processes, providing grounded examples of how systemic change can be supported across sectors and levels of governance. These options connect with the growing body of work that sees biodiversity loss as a structural outcome of how societies organise production, consumption and governance (Díaz et al., 2018; Rockström et al., 2009; Steffen et al., 2015). From this perspective, transformation involves not only technological innovation but also shifts in values, norms and institutions (Abson et al., 2017; O’Brien and Sygna, 2013; Meadows, 1999). 5.2 Cross-cutting discussion: Leverage points for transformative change While each knowledge product focuses on a specific sector, they collectively show where policy can intervene most effectively to enable systemic change. Donella Meadows’ framework on leverage points provides a useful lens to interpret these insights. It distinguishes between interventions that adjust system parameters, those that redesign system structures and those that shift system intent—the deeper goals and values that drive behaviour. Acting on system parameters and feedbacks The briefs propose measures that adjust incentives and information flows, such as integrating biodiversity indicators in finance, improving supply-chain transparency in trade and defining durability standards for textiles. These actions strengthen accountability and help redirect existing systems toward more sustainable outcomes. They are essential entry points but have limited impact if pursued in isolation. Redesigning system structures Several briefs focus on transforming institutional design to embed inclusion and learning. Examples include linking trade and development frameworks, aligning circular-economy and biodiversity policies, and enabling cooperation between formal and community-based seed systems. Redesigning governance structures alters who participates, how decisions are made and how knowledge circulates, creating the institutional conditions for continuous adaptation and innovation. 18 Shifting system intent and paradigms The policy note and briefs converge on the need to redefine the goals of economic activity. This involves moving from volume-based growth to sufficiency, fairness and care for nature. Policy can influence this shift by valuing well-being, resilience and justice as core measures of progress, embedding them across EU and global frameworks. Such deep leverage points take time but yield the most enduring transformation. Interactions among leverage levels Effective transformation depends on reinforcing links between these levels. Adjusting parameters (rules, incentives) can enable institutional redesign, while inclusive governance supports evolving norms and shared intent. Without attention to these deeper levers, technical reforms risk being short-lived. Combining regulatory innovation, social learning and new narratives allows biodiversity policy to move from compliance to coherence, and from obligation to care. 5.3 Implications for policy and practice Across all sectors, the evidence points to a clear message: The EU and its partners already have the foundations for systemic change. The task ahead is to connect them coherently across the different levels of leverage. • At the operational level, align sectoral measures in trade, finance, agriculture and circular economy so that biodiversity outcomes are explicit and consistent. • At the institutional level, embed participation, learning and justice in programme design, funding and monitoring, making them integral to delivery. • At the societal level, promote narratives that link biodiversity with fairness, well-being, care and everyday life, fostering public support for sufficiency and shared responsibility. By working across these levels simultaneously, the EU can translate its biodiversity commitments into action that is effective, inclusive and lasting. This integrated approach supports implementation of the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and strengthens Europe’s contribution to a just, caring and nature-positive future. 6 Conclusion and outlook This deliverable set out to translate PLANET4B’s research on transformative change, behavioural science, values and intersectionality into actionable guidance for EU and global biodiversity policy. It aimed to identify concrete policy options for prioritising biodiversity across sectors and to improve coherence between environmental, economic, and social objectives. To achieve this, Deliverable 4.4 produced five knowledge products: four sectoral policy briefs (on trade, fashion, finance, and seed systems) and one cross-cutting policy note on transformative change. 19 Together, these products provide complementary insights into how biodiversitypositive transformation can be accelerated across systems of production, consumption and governance. The sectoral briefs focus on targeted interventions that adjust incentives and information flows, while the policy note integrates them into a broader framework of enabling conditions – justice and inclusion, learning and reflection, collaboration and coherence, adaptive governance and agency and leadership. Read together, they show that effective and durable transformation requires policy to operate across multiple levels of leverage: adjusting parameters, redesigning institutions and, ultimately, re-shaping the intent of the system toward sufficiency, fairness and care for nature. Across all five products, three overarching messages emerge: First, biodiversity policy is most effective when it links behavioural and institutional change. Inclusion, creativity and behavioural insight are not peripheral; they are central to enabling transformation. They ensure that people are recognised, trusted and equipped to act, that learning is embedded into decision-making and that policies resonate with lived experience. Second, transformation depends on reflexivity and coherence. Policy systems that learn, coordinate and adapt are better able to sustain progress than those that rely solely on compliance. Strengthening connections across policy domains – trade, finance, agriculture, industry and education – turns isolated initiatives into reinforcing pathways for change. Third, aligning intent matters as much as adjusting rules. Real progress requires redefining what success looks like: from short-term output to long-term well-being, from economic throughput to regenerative prosperity and from growth measured in volume to value measured in resilience, care and equity. These lessons arrive at a pivotal time. The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is being implemented, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 is approaching its mid-term review, and several key regulations are under negotiation or early rollout. PLANET4B’s findings provide timely evidence for these policy windows, showing how social and behavioural dimensions can improve uptake, legitimacy and impact. Looking ahead, upscaling this work will require continued collaboration between researchers, policymakers and practitioners to link evidence with governance practice. Future research should test how the enabling conditions identified here perform across different policy and regional contexts, track outcomes over time and co-develop monitoring frameworks that support adaptive learning. Maintaining attention to participation, equity and contextual diversity will be essential to ensure that interventions are effective and fair across scales. 26 Agriculture and migration EU (FiBL) Addressing how labour mobility and rural exodus affect farm practices and biodiversity. Agriculture Trade and global value chains Brazil – EU (RU) Shifting trade systems towards deforestation-free and biodiversityfriendly value chains Trade Sustainable investment behaviour Global – EU – Norway (NINA) Improving ESG frameworks and addressing investor biases to promote sustainable finance. Finance 27 Annex 2 - Resilient Trade Beyond Traceability: Strengthening the EU–Brazil Partnership for Nature and People Introduction Working effectively with key trading partners will be a critical dimension of a resilient and competitive Europe. This includes Brazil, one of the European Union’s (EU) largest agricultural trading partners, supplying nearly 40% of its agricultural imports in 2024 (European Commission, 2025). Trade in soy, beef and other agricultural and forest commodities has long been linked to deforestation and wider biodiversity loss, as well as violations of human rights. Between 2010 and 2014, EU consumption of these commodities was linked to 26-29% of global deforestation-related carbon emissions embedded in international trade. A substantial share of this deforestation occurred in Brazil, driven largely by commodities such as cattle and oilseed production for EU markets (Pendrill et al., 2019). Ensuring that competitiveness and sustainability reinforce rather than undermine each other will be critical for long-term resilience in EU’s trading partnerships. Reducing dependencies on environmentally harmful and socially inequitable supply chains is essential to achieving such resilience, and for the global transition to sustainable trade. Background: Policy context and political dynamics Recent regulatory efforts, notably the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), mark significant progress in efforts to address sustainability from the demand side. Governments and businesses have invested heavily in preparing for its implementation. Yet these efforts face mounting political headwinds: the EUDR has faced various criticisms both in the EU and elsewhere, while ongoing delays and uncertainty risk undermining confidence and momentum. At the same time, structural risks persist. These include concentrated corporate power along supply chains, limited participation of affected peoples in trade decision-making, inconsistencies within and between EU and Brazilian policies, and insufficient attention to trade’s direct impacts on biodiversity at the level of both ecosystems and species. Together, these challenges could blunt the effectiveness of regulatory measures and limit their ability to deliver lasting outcomes for people and nature. EU trade-related policies reflect this complexity. They combine a strong commitment to open, rules-based markets with a growing prominence of unilateral regulations (Muradian et al., 2025). This evolving policy mix is reshaping trade dynamics. While legal obligations under measures such as the EUDR fall primarily on EU operators and traders, compliance pressures and costs often cascade through supply chains, shifting responsibilities onto producers and suppliers in countries such as Brazil. The political context in Brazil further compounds these dynamics. A new environmental licensing law could fast-track infrastructure for commodity exports, regardless of social or environmental impacts. If domestic safeguards are weakened, this could fuel unsustainable production, increase supply chain risks and widen the gap between EU sustainable trade objectives and realities on the ground. 28 Addressing these risks requires stronger and achievable alignment across trade, development and environmental policy. Because trade-related measures directly influence land use and food systems, unclear or inconsistent policies can create legal uncertainty for due diligence and send mixed signals to producers. This can undermine the credibility of the policies. Greater alignment and clear communication would help ensure that measures reinforce rather than contradict one another. In doing so, the EU can reduce strategic dependencies, promote fair and sustainable competition, and deliver more coherently on its global commitments, the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and broader human rights and sustainable development frameworks. This brief outlines four challenges and associated policy options to guide more effective and integrated action. Evidence and analysis This brief draws on the Horizon Europe PLANET4B project and wider literature. Together, they examined how EU policies shape land-use decisions and human rights risks across beef and soy supply chains (Uehara, 2024; IISD, 2022; Narlikar, 2022; O’Brien et al., 2024; Clapp, 2012; Birbeck, 2021; UNEP, 2021). The analytical methodology included systems mapping, fieldwork, interviews, and validation workshops in Brazil and Europe (Loučková et al., 2025; Mendes et al., 2025). The findings confirmed the urgency of addressing structural risks in trade and the opportunity for the EU to make trade a force for the promotion of equity and the wellbeing of people and nature. Challenges and policy options EU–Brazil trade can deliver tangible benefits for people and nature. Based on the evidence and analysis summarised above, four challenges emerge. Each challenge sets out why it matters within international frameworks and outlines related policy options for consideration by EU institutions and Member States. Table 4: Challenges and policy options for EU-Brazil trade. Challenge Policy option 1. Prioritising well-being in trade for people and nature. Global markets continue to drive unsustainable growth, biodiversity loss and inequalities. They also risk undermining long-term food security and competitiveness in both the EU and Brazil. Trade-related policies have the potential to evolve beyond volume-driven growth and focus on conditions for resilience such as healthy ecosystems, equitable rural economies and sustainable livelihoods. Aligning trade policies and practices with international frameworks such as the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity • Embedding binding provisions on well-being, biodiversity and human rights in EU trade agreements could strengthen the link between market access and sustainability outcomes. For example, this could include restrictions on harmful pesticides or requirements to apply standards consistently across different biomes. Such measures would also help protect EU producers from being undercut by unsustainable competitors and reinforce Europe’s position in green markets. • Further leveraging existing mechanisms under the EU Common Agricultural Policy to 29 Framework (GBF), the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the Paris Agreement and related commitments is key to delivering positive outcomes for people and nature. enable sustainable transitions in farming and rural livelihoods, supporting long-term food security and competitiveness. This could include expanding advisory services and eco-schemes for agrobiodiversity, strengthening agri-environment-climate measures to support diversification and agroecology, and promoting community-led local development approaches. 2. Placing equity and rights at the centre of trade. Indigenous Peoples, local communities, peasants and other people working in rural areas should be able to decide if and how they participate in trade. When existing rights to land, resources, adequate living standards, participation and self-determination are undermined, biodiversity and social stability can suffer. Trade that respects international human rights and other rights supports both equity and effectiveness. Such rights include those under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and other people working in rural areas, International Labour Organization Convention 169, and other human rights instruments. • Strengthening rights protections in EUDR implementation, for example through delegated acts, clarifying relevant risk criteria and due-diligence requirements, to help reduce rights-related risks in supply chains. • Requiring companies to establish effective grievance and remedy mechanisms that are accessible to affected peoples and communities to improve accountability for rights abuses. • Rebalancing the role of traceability systems to help prevent the exclusion or penalization of smallholders, peasants and other people working in rural areas. • Linking EU market access to Free, Prior and Informed Consent and fair benefit-sharing in high-risk supply chains to help ensure that Indigenous Peoples and traditional communities can decide if and how they engage in trade. 3. Supporting agroecology and territorial economies. Alternatives to monocultures and extractive value chains already exist but remain poorly supported and rarely scaled, lacking the incentives and investment needed for wider implementation. Promoting socio-bioeconomies, understood as inclusive and biodiversity-based economies that enhance the social, environmental and cultural value of nature-derived products while expanding market access and income for Indigenous Peoples, traditional communities and smallholders, can help shift trade toward sustainability. • Channelling EU investment into agroecology and socio-bioeconomy value chains to accelerate their uptake, for example through instruments such as the Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument of the Global Europe, Global Gateway and the European Fund for Sustainable Development Plus. • Applying rights-based and social justice approaches consistently across EU funding and cooperation programmes to strengthen results beyond environmental safeguards. • Leveraging public procurement and sustainable sourcing policies to help scale biodiversity-positive and community-led products. • Linking EU-Brazil cooperation to long-term, place-based socio-bioeconomy support to build resilience, strengthen equity and 30 conserve biodiversity, aligning with the G20 Global Bioeconomy Initiative. • Strengthening territorial value chains, built on short, diverse and locally rooted market systems that connect producers, consumers and local institutions while supporting smallholder-led agroecology. 4. Increasing transparency and accountability. Trade-related policies can shape land use and livelihoods across borders. Embedding participation and transparency throughout trade processes can strengthen democratic legitimacy, build trust and support alignment with international commitments for nature and human rights. • Strengthening participation channels, such as the Civil Society Dialogue on Trade and national advisory committees, involve civil society and affected communities early in policy processes would help ensure trade reflects public values and support more inclusive goal-setting and accountability. • Transparency in trade requires clear communication of objectives and rules. Strong regulation should define the baseline for accountability, while voluntary certification can complement it by making supply chains more traceable and accessible to stakeholders. • Improving coordination across EU institutions, notably the European Commission Directorates-General for Trade, Agriculture and Rural Development, Environment and International Partnerships, would promote better alignment between trade, biodiversity and development objectives. Conclusion Aligning EU–Brazil trade with the EU Competitiveness Compass and global commitments for nature and human rights requires an integrated approach centred on people and nature. Embedding provisions that protect both can strengthen rights, build resilient territorial economies and increase accountability across supply chains. This, in turn, helps safeguard public trust, boost Europe’s competitiveness and reinforce the EU’s position as a global sustainability leader. Existing policy options provide the opportunity for the future of trade to be one in which it drives equality and biodiversity conservation, as a catalyst for shared prosperity and ecological integrity. Seizing this opportunity will require decisive action from EU policymakers to align trade measures with sustainability and human rights – the foundation of a more competitive, fair and sustainable Europe. 31 References Clapp, J. (2012) The Financialization of Food: Who is Being Fed?, in International Society for Ecological Economics Conference, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Available at: https://www.isecoeco.org/conferences/isee2012-versao3/pdf/335.pdf. Deere Birbeck, C. (2021) Greening International Trade: Pathways Forward. Geneva: Forum on Trade, Environment and SDGs (TESS), p. 84. Available at: https://tradehub.earth/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Greening-InternationalTrade_18.07.2021.pdf (Accessed: November 14, 2022). European Commission (2025) EU trade relations with Brazil. Available at: https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-andregion/countries-and-regions/brazil_en (Accessed: August 5, 2025). International Institute for Sustainability - IIS (2022) Policy Brief: The European UnionMercosur Trade Agreement: a solution for trade-related habitat loss in Brazil? IIS. Available at: https://www.iis-rio.org/en/publications/policy-brief-theeuropean-union-mercosur-trade-agreement-a-solution-for-trade-relatedhabitat-loss-in-brazil/ (Accessed: June 6, 2022). Kanashiro Uehara, T. (2024) Planetary Welcare principles for just and sustainable futures: a compass for system change, trade reforms, and transformations, Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy, 20(1), p. 2300885. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2300885. Loučková, B., et al. (2025) Mapping of leverage points and transformative pathways for upscaling at the EU and global context produced for 5 sectors. Deliverable number: D4.2. Brussels, Belgium: PLANET4B, p. 127. Available at: https://planet4b.eu/project-documents/mapping-of-leverage-points-andtransformative-pathways-for-upscaling-at-the-eu-and-global-contextproduced-for-5-sectors/. Mendes, V. et al. (2025) Intersectional Environmental Justice in Dutch-Brazilian Beef and Soy Trade: Challenges for the EU Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products, International Journal of the Commons. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1454. Muradian, R. et al. (2025) Will the EU deforestation-free products regulation (EUDR) reduce tropical forest loss? Insights from three producer countries, Ecological Economics, 227, p. 108389. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108389. Narlikar, A. (2022) How not to negotiate: the case of trade multilateralism, International Affairs, 98(5), pp. 1553–1573. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/ia/iiac063. O’Brien, K. et al. (2024) IPBES Transformative Change Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. Zenodo. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382231. Pendrill, F. et al. (2019) Agricultural and forestry trade drives large share of tropical deforestation emissions, Global Environmental Change, 56, pp. 1–10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2019.03.002. UNEP (2021) Biodiversity and international trade policy primer: How does nature fit in the sustainable trade agenda? Geneva, pp. 43–43. Available at: https://tradehub.earth/biodiversity-and-international-trade-policy-primer/. 32 Annex 3 - Supporting seed diversity for resilient EU agriculture: A policy perspective Introduction Europe’s food systems are under growing pressure from the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. Between 23 and 44 per cent of the European Union (EU) and United Kingdom (UK) agricultural land is already at high risk of topsoil carbon loss, with implications for food security and resilience (Breure et al., 2025; Van Etten et al., 2019). Seed diversity is central to adaptation. Locally adapted conservation varieties help crops withstand heat, drought, and pests, while reducing vulnerability to shocks.1 Where diversity is lost, systems become more fragile and recovery is slower. Across Europe, community seed banks and grassroots seed networks are safeguarding and developing this diversity. Small-scale farmers, breeders and amateur gardeners exchange varieties of open-pollinated vegetable seeds,2 experiment on farm and engage in participatory breeding. Their initiatives deliver practical solutions for conserving biodiversity, supporting climate adaptation and strengthening the resilience of food systems. While these initiatives are tailored to local conditions, they also preserve knowledge and cultural heritage. EU policy has the potential to strengthen these efforts. Recognising informal exchange of open-pollinated vegetable seeds would contribute to climate adaptation and biodiversity conservation (European Commission, 2020). Yet current rules are optimised for standardised markets. Registration requirements, strict uniformity criteria and compliance costs exclude many conservation and farmer-bred varieties. This has contributed to genetic erosion and weakened resilience (Batten et al, 2021). Current policy measures Some measures have already created space for diversity. EU directives on conservation and amateur varieties, provisions under the Organic Regulation for heterogeneous material and support through the Common Agricultural Policy 20232027 have begun to lower barriers. Simplification steps for very small farms have also reduced administrative burdens. Taken together, these measures mark important progress, but their impact remains limited and uneven across Member States (European Court of Auditors, 2024). 1 In this brief, “conservation varieties” refer to registered seed varieties that are traditionally grown, or newly developed for conservation purposes, are freely reproducible and are characterised by their level of genetic and phenotypic diversity. 2 Note the important distinction between the exchange of seeds for commercial purposes versus the exchange of seeds for conservation purposes. This brief is focused on the exchange of seeds for the purpose of conservation and sustainable use of plant genetic resources. Exchanging seeds for conservation purposes is often done in small quantities and may or may not involve financial compensation. This contrasts with the commercial exchange of seeds for generating profit. 33 Reform is now under discussion. The proposed Plant Reproductive Material Regulation (PRM) (COM(2023) 414) aims to consolidate seed rules and align them more closely with biodiversity and climate objectives. It would introduce sustainability requirements for registering new varieties, while exempting material for amateur gardeners and conservation organisations, including seed banks, from many obligations. Proportionate procedures will be essential to ensure that small operators and community seed systems can benefit (Šajn, 2024). International frameworks reinforce this direction. The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas (UNDROP) all highlight the importance of crop diversity and farmers’ rights. Assessments by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) confirm that agrobiodiversity is central to climate adaptation, the conservation of biodiversity and resilient food systems. Evidence and analysis This brief draws on research led by the Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG) working with partners in the Horizon Europe PLANET4B project. The analysis combined literature review, expert interviews, workshops and policy analysis. Although much of the empirical work focused on Hungary, the findings are consistent with evidence across Europe and beyond: where enabling conditions exist, informal seed systems flourish, supporting resilience, knowledge exchange and cultural heritage. Challenges and policy options This section highlights core challenges that hinder the potential of seed banks and grassroots seed networks from thriving. It also outlines policy options in the form of actions that can be taken at the EU policy level to overcome these challenges. The following policy options should not be seen as stand-alone or linear, but as interconnected and complementary to one another. 34 Table 5: Challenges and policy options for supporting seed diversity within the EU. Challenge Policy option 1. Enable proportionate seed rules to protect seed diversity. Global commitments under the CBD and the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM GBF) call for maintaining crop genetic diversity to enhance resilience and food security (GBF Target 10). Yet, current legal frameworks often favour uniform, commercial varieties, restricting the exchange and marketing of traditional and farmer-bred seeds. Proportionate regulatory approaches are essential to sustain agrobiodiversity as a foundation for climate adaptation. • Exempt conservation, non-commercial and farmer-bred varieties from the scope of the proposed PRM. • Allow small-quantity, local sales and exchanges without catalogue listing, following examples such as Hungary’s exemption for small-scale, non-industrial seed sales. • Establish a nano-enterprise threshold (for example, < EUR 100 000 annual revenue) to reduce administrative obligations for micro-producers. • Issue Commission guidance to ensure Member States apply PRM flexibility consistently and enable proportionate cross-border sharing of conservation material. 2. Recognise and protect grassroots custodians of agrobiodiversity. The ITPGRFA and the UNDROP recognise farmers and local communities as custodians of seed diversity. Upholding their rights to save, use, exchange and sell seeds is critical to conserve agrobiodiversity and safeguard traditional knowledge systems. • Include explicit recognition of the importance of community seed custodians and their traditional knowledge in the PRM, ensuring effective measures to enable their participation. • Safeguard farmers’ rights to save, use and exchange seed in non-commercial channels through clear exemptions in EU seed legislation. • Develop flexible quality standards for diverse material, drawing on the Organic Regulation (EU 2018/848) and Delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/1189 on organic heterogeneous material. • Integrate protection of traditional knowledge into PRM denomination rules by requiring checks against national and community seed bank records to prevent misappropriation of local variety names. 35 3. Strengthen collaboration between formal and informal seed systems. IPBES and the IPCC highlight that inclusive innovation and local knowledge are central to climate adaptation. Bridging formal and informal seed systems allows the integration of scientific research with experiential learning, strengthening adaptive capacity and long-term sustainability (GBF Target 21). • Dedicate Horizon Europe calls to participatory breeding and communityled agrobiodiversity research. • Provide fair compensation for farmers and gardeners engaged as coresearchers in EUand Member Statefunded projects. • Support multi-actor projects and Operational Groups under the EU CAP Network to strengthen collaboration among farmers, breeders, gene banks and civil society. • Strengthen Agricultural Knowledge and Innovation Systems (AKIS) in Member State CAP Strategic Plans to ensure participatory research results are shared through advisory services. 4. Redirect agricultural support to the dynamic management of genetic resources. The KM GBF and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (CGRFA) call for conserving and sustainably using genetic diversity on farms. Incentives for the dynamic management of local varieties enhance adaptation, food security and the resilience of rural livelihoods. • Expand CAP eco-schemes to reward participatory breeding, on-farm dynamic management and seed conservation and community seed banks. • Pilot result-based payments for genetic diversity, using indicators such as the number of local varieties cultivated or hectares under conservation crops. • Integrate agrobiodiversity objectives into national AKIS strategies to guide advisory services on seed diversity and exchange. • Use CAP rural development funds (Pillar II) to support regional seed networks, local seed banks and conservation contracts. In Hungary, agreements between the national gene bank and small-scale farmers have proved mutually beneficial and expanded scientific knowledge on diverse crop varieties under changing climate conditions. 42 Cross-cutting principle: Justice, inclusion and plural pathways of change Transforming the fashion sector for biodiversity and well-being requires recognising diversity in people, knowledge and power. Justice and inclusion are not separate aims but the conditions for transformation, as underscored by recent research emphasising the importance of plural, context-specific pathways for systemic change. This calls for participation that genuinely shapes design and decision-making, while addressing intersecting inequalities of gender, ethnicity, class, ability and geography across global value chains. Plural ways of knowing, including artistic, scientific, local, Indigenous and traditional knowledge systems, should inform how sustainability and well-being are defined, practised and measured, both within the EU and in its partner countries. Learning, collaboration and agency must connect actors across the value chain, from designers and producers to workers, consumers and policymakers, through transparent and adaptive governance. Implementing this principle aligns with GBF Target 22 on inclusive and participatory decision-making, the EU Gender Action Plan III, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the ILO Decent Work Agenda. When justice, plural knowledge and collective learning move together, the transition towards a biodiversity-positive fashion sector becomes not only effective, but also fair, legitimate and durable. Conclusion The evidence is clear: The fashion sector cannot contribute to a biodiversity-positive future without confronting its structural dependence on overproduction and overconsumption. The policy options under Challenge 1, reorienting the sector towards sufficiency and well-being within planetary boundaries, are therefore pivotal. They redefine success away from volume and speed towards durability, care and shared value. Implementing these measures would also make the rest possible: Circular-economy tools could serve real reduction goals, biodiversity metrics could capture genuine improvement, and agroecological production and fair-work transitions would have space to thrive. In short, sufficiency is the precondition for coherence. By adopting this systemic approach of reducing absolute throughput while embedding justice, inclusion and learning across all levels of governance, the EU can turn its role as a global fashion leader into proof that competitiveness and responsibility can reinforce, rather than contradict, one another. Acting on these challenges together would mark a decisive step towards aligning Europe’s cultural influence, economic ambition and ecological sustainability. 43 References Cornell, S., Häyhä, T. and Palm, C. (2021) A sustainable and resilient circular textiles and fashion industry: Towards a circular economy that respects and responds to planetary priorities. Stockholm: Stockholm Resilience Centre for the Ellen MacArthur Foundation and H&M Group. Available at: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4561847 International Labour Organization. (2025). Advancing Decent Work in Supply chains: Decent Work Challenges and Opportunities in the Textiles and Clothing Sector. DOI: https://doi.org/10.54394/PKJM3600 IPBES (2024) Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. O’Brien, K., Garibaldi, L., Agrawal, A., Bennett, E., Biggs, O., Calderón Contreras, R. et. al. (eds.). IPBES secretariat, Bonn, Germany. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382230 Lambert, A., Booth, C., Uehara, T., Noor, N. & Spinelli, F. (2025a) Reports from workshops on validated methods and pathways at EU, global and sector level (Report No. D4.3). Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17251078 Lambert, A., Uehara, T., Lipka, B., Pataki, G., Booth, C., and Fletcher, R. (2025b). Supporting seed diversity for resilient EU agriculture: A policy perspective. Cambridge, UK: UNEP-WCMC. Loučková, B., Simsek, E. & Ofori-Amanfo, P. (2024). Report on the system mapping and leverage points for each case (Report No D3.2). Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15479511 Manshoven, S., Christis, M., Vercalsteren, A. and Arnold, M. et al. (2019) Textiles and the environment in a circular economy (Eionet Report – ETC/WMGE 2019/6). Copenhagen: European Environment Agency. Available at: https://www.eionet.europa.eu/etcs/etc-wmge/products/etc-wmgereports/textiles-and-the-environment-in-a-circular-economy Navarro-Gambín, P., Bonetti, M., Villa, M., Brunori, G., & Vergamini, D. (2025) Paving the Ground for Biodiversity Positive Transformative Change in Fashion: An Exploration of Drivers of Biodiversity Loss and Barriers to Transformative Change in the Textile, Apparel, and Fashion Sector. International Journal of the Commons, 19(1), pp. 322–341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.1458 UNEP (2020) Sustainability and circularity in the textile value chain: Global stocktaking. Nairobi: UNEP. Available at: https://wedocs.unep.org/20.500.11822/34184 44 Annex 5 - Private finance and cognitive biases: A Theory of Change for aligning financial actor behaviour with global biodiversity goals Introduction Global biodiversity loss poses substantial risks to human well-being and economic stability. Yet, human activity has accelerated the decline in biodiversity to rates unprecedented in human history. Reducing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss requires transforming the global economy (IPBES, 2019; IPBES, 2024). Financial institutions have a fundamental role to play in this transformation. Achieving global commitments to halt and reverse biodiversity loss, including the goals and targets outlined in the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), will require substantial investment. Through GBF Target 19, Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) committed to mobilising by 2030 at least USD 200 billion per year for biodiversity from all sources, including private finance (CBD, 2022). At the EU level, this is reflected in the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, which calls for unlocking at least EUR 20 billion a year (European Commission, 2020). Private finance for nature is gaining momentum, but major gaps remain (UNEP, 2021; UNEP, 2023; UNEP, 2024). Mobilising private finance for biodiversity faces the challenge that the value of biodiversity is often underestimated in economic decision-making. For financial institutions, understanding the full scope of biodiversity risks and opportunities in their portfolios requires use of science-based methodologies and metrics (TNFD, 2023). However, inappropriate application of these can amplify of decision-makers in financial institutions and hinder alignment between private finance flows and global biodiversity goals (Chudy and Barton, 2025). To shift private financial flows in support of biodiversity, it will be important to strengthen how financial institutions assess and manage biodiversity risks and opportunities. This also involves fostering nature-positive markets and improving the enabling environment, including fiscal policy. These factors will help address incentives and cognitive biases that investors and other finance sector actors face in support of transformative change. Evidence and analysis Under PLANET4B, a Horizon Europe-funded project, expert researchers from the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), in consultation with representatives of the financial industry, conducted systems mapping to understand how cognitive bias and other systemic factors affect whether and how investors consider biodiversity in their decision-making. Using this analysis, researchers at CzechGlobe, together with researchers at NINA, mapped “pathways of change” for better integrating biodiversity into financial investment decisions. These pathways highlight how policymakers can enable transformative change towards more sustainable financial actor behaviour through policy measures (Loučková et al., 2025). 45 Building on NINA’s research, this policy note developed by a group of experts at UNEP-WCMC, presents a Theory of Change describing activities and outputs that policymakers can support to help align private financial flows with global biodiversity goals. It is intended for policymakers at national and EU level who work in areas related to finance, the economy and the environment. Background The Theory of Change outlines activities and outputs through which policymakers at national and EU level can support alignment of private financial flows with global biodiversity goals, contributing to an improved state of nature. While the transformation of private finance will occur alongside other sustainable finance processes, this Theory of Change focuses on outputs and outcomes related specifically to biodiversity. Box 1 summarises the problem that the Theory of Change seeks to address, together with its intended long-term outcomes and overall impact. Box 1: Problem statement, long-term outcomes and impact addressed by the Theory of Change Problem statement: Private financial institutions have limited capacity and incentives to assess and manage biodiversity risks and opportunities. Insufficient or inappropriate application of biodiversity metrics amplifies cognitive biases among decision-makers in financial institutions. This combination of factors hinders the alignment of private financial flows with global biodiversity goals, which is needed to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. Intended long-term outcomes: Financial actor behaviour and private financial flows are aligned with global biodiversity goals. This is driven by stronger and better understood business case for biodiversity-positive investments, as well as increased buy-in from C-suite and board-level decision makers within financial institutions. Intended impact: Improved state of nature. Private financial institutions comprise a wide range of service providers, including commercial banks, investment banks, insurance companies, pension funds, impact investors and others. Each type of financial actor has its own decision-making processes and behaviours that should align with global biodiversity goals. For brevity, in this brief and the Theory of Change, the term “financial actor” or “finance sector actor” refers to all types of financial institutions. Likewise, “financial actor behaviour” encompasses the decision-making processes and behaviours of these institutions. The development of the Theory of Change has been informed by studies of cognitive biases influencing decision-making on biodiversity, both in general and in the context of sustainable finance, carried out under the PLANET4B project. Cognitive biases are “systematic patterns of deviation from rational judgment that affect how investors perceive, evaluate and act on financial information” (Chudy and Barton, 2025). Linkages to cognitive bias were considered in framing the Theory of Change and are highlighted in assumptions and hypotheses. Examples of cognitive biases relevant to private financial actors’ decision-making on biodiversity are highlighted in Box 2 below. 46 Box 2: Examples of cognitive biases influencing decision-making on biodiversity risks and opportunities by investors and other finance sector actors, taken from Chudy and Barton (2025). Affect heuristic Using emotions (positive or negative) to guide decisions rather than objective analysis. Availability heuristic A mental shortcut where people estimate the likelihood of an event based on how easily examples come to mind. Confirmation bias The tendency to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms existing beliefs. Framing effects The way information is presented (framed). Loss aversion The tendency to prefer avoiding losses more than acquiring equivalent gain. Overconfidence bias An inflated sense of one’s knowledge, accuracy of predictions or ability to control outcomes in investment decisions. Short-term bias The tendency to focus on immediate outcomes. Status quo bias A preference for the current state of affairs, leading to resistance to change or new decisions. Warm glow A positive emotional response to doing something perceived as morally good, such as sustainable or ethical investing. Theory of change [Click here to access the interactive Theory of Change] The Theory of Change describes how policymakers can help support transformative change in private financial flows to benefit biodiversity. It is structured across five levels: • Activities: Five categories of actions or interventions that policymakers at national and EU level can take to generate the proposed outputs. • Outputs: Tangible products derived from the activities. • Intermediate outcomes: Shortto medium-term changes that result from the uptake of the outputs by financial institutions and other actors. • Long-term outcomes: Changes in institutions, markets or governance that result from achieving intermediate outcomes. • Impact: The long-lasting change in nature that occurs as a result of these outcomes. Key findings and policy options Based on the development of the Theory of Change, this section presents key findings and policy options that policymakers at national and EU levels can consider to enable sustainable investment behaviours, mobilise private finance for biodiversity and contribute to an improved state of nature. These build on the Theory of Change’s five categories of priority actions and interventions: (i) supporting innovation in biodiversity data and tools, (ii) developing corporate and finance guidance and standards, (iii) strengthening the enabling policy and fiscal environment, (iv) advancing scientific research on business–biodiversity links, and (v) raising awareness through campaigns, training, and partnerships. 47 1. Strengthening biodiversity data and tools Data on biodiversity impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities is critical for addressing financial actors’ status quo bias and short-termism. When investors and other finance sector actors make decisions, they are influenced by cognitive biases that can reduce their willingness to change existing processes or explore new, more sustainable investment opportunities. Data and evidence provide a stronger foundation for decision-making, reducing reliance on mental shortcuts. As illustrated in the Theory of Change, strengthening tools to assess biodiversity impacts, risks and opportunities in financial institutions’ portfolios is critical to demonstrating the business case and securing executive-suite commitment. Policymakers can consider measures to enable and encourage financial institutions to assess and disclose biodiversity issues, in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 15. 2. Promoting corporate biodiversity reporting Financial institutions rely on sustainability data reported by non-financial companies. Investors and other finance sector actors need information on biodiversity impacts, dependencies, risks and opportunities of companies in their portfolios. While some can be estimated, information reported directly by companies is often more accurate and reliable. The Theory of Change highlights that sustainability data reporting by corporate entities (i.e. non-financial companies) is key for mainstreaming biodiversity risk and opportunity management in the financial industry and promoting development of nature positive finance markets. In line with GBF Target 15, policymakers can promote corporate reporting on biodiversity through a mix of regulatory measures, voluntary initiatives and enabling administrative actions. 3. Aligning financial regulations and fiscal policies with biodiversity goals Ensuring that financial regulations and fiscal policies are aligned with global biodiversity goals promotes coherence, avoids conflicting signals and creates consistent incentives for biodiversity-positive financial decisions. Investors and other finance sector actors are more likely to overcome cognitive biases and adopt sustainable investment behaviour when the business case is clear and incentives are aligned. Policymakers can pursue two complementary actions: (1) creating an enabling regulatory environment that reforms incentives harmful to nature and aligns financial flows with biodiversity objectives (GBF Targets 14 and 18), and (2) strengthening mechanisms that enhance biodiversity-positive investment, such as sustainable finance taxonomies, nature markets and mechanisms for mobilising finance (GBF Target 19). 4. Advancing research on biodiversity-finance linkages Further scientific research is needed to address key gaps in the tools and knowledge available to financial institutions. Many financial institutions already apply biodiversity datasets, metrics and tools to understand nature-related risks and opportunities, and 48 uptake is expected to expand as new instruments are developed. However, gaps persist and scientific consensus is still evolving. Priority areas for further research include: business biodiversity impact attribution, use of proxies in measuring and reporting of biodiversity impacts, development of natureclimate scenarios and improvement of ecosystem service valuation methodologies. Policymakers can support research on links between biodiversity and economic activities, with priority given to these areas. 49 References Chudy, R. and Barton, D.N. (2025) Cognitive biases in ESG investing – Uncovering psychological barriers to biodiversity-positive finance. Unpublished chapter Oslo: Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA). Convention on Biological Diversity (2022) Target 19: Mobilize $200 Billion per Year for Biodiversity. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. Available at: https://www.cbd.int/gbf/targets/19 European Commission (2020) EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://environment.ec.europa.eu/strategy/biodiversity-strategy-2030_en IPBES (2024) Thematic Assessment Report on the Interlinkages among Biodiversity, Water, Food and Health. Harrison, P.A., McElwee, P.D. and van Huysen, T.L. (eds.). Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. Available at: https://ict.ipbes.net/ipbes-ictguide/data-and-knowledge-management/citations-of-ipbesassessments/nexus-assessment IPBES (2019) Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Díaz, S., Settele, J., Brondízio, E.S., Ngo, H.T., Guèze, M., Agard, J., Arneth, A., Balvanera, P., Brauman, K.A., Butchart, S.H.M., et al. (eds.). Bonn: IPBES Secretariat. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/6417333 Loučková, B., Simsek, E. T., Ofori-Amanfo, P., Booth, C., & Beaufoy, G. (2025). Mapping of leverage points and transformative pathways for upscaling in EU and global contexts. Report No D4.2 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15479610 Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (2023) Recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures. Version 1.0. London: TNFD. Available at: https://tnfd.global/publication/recommendations-of-thetaskforce-on-nature-related-financial-disclosures/ United Nations Environment Programme (2023) State of Finance for Nature 2023: The Big Nature Turnaround – Repurposing $7 Trillion to Combat Nature Loss. Nairobi: UNEP. https://doi.org/10.59117/20.500.11822/44278 United Nations Environment Programme (2021) State of Finance for Nature 2021. Nairobi: UNEP. Available at: https://www.unep.org/resources/state-financenature-2021 United Nations Environment Programme Finance Initiative (2024) Private finance for nature surges to over $102 billion, paving the way to close global biodiversity financing gap by 2030. London: UNEP FI. Available at: https://www.unepfi.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Pressrelease-New-Green-Shoots-research-Clean-10062024-updated-2.pdf 50 Annex 6 - Enabling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe: From values to action – A synthesis for policy and implementation under the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Executive summary The extent to which Europe’s biodiversity goals are achieved will depend on what happens after the policies are written. Laws and targets set direction and ambition, but people, institutions, and their relationships make change real. This policy note distils insights from the Horizon Europe PLANET4B project into practical guidance for those implementing the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, national and sub-national biodiversity strategies and action plans, and related frameworks. It draws on evidence from eleven case studies, expert workshops, a world café with project partners, and an expert panel involving European Commission representatives, PLANET4B partners, and a lead author of the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment. Together, these inputs show how social, behavioural, and institutional change can be put into practice across diverse European contexts. How transformation takes shape Across communities, sectors, and policy arenas, transformation unfolded through interaction — between values, learning, collaboration, and governance. It began in inclusive, value-based settings that built trust, belonging, and connection with nature. It developed through shared learning, experimentation, and reflection. It expanded as collaboration and alignment deepened between communities, practitioners, and institutions. In some contexts, it began to influence how organisations listened and adapted. While the project’s timeframe could not capture long-term outcomes, evidence from the case studies, workshops, and expert dialogues identified five conditions that created space for meaningful and durable change: 1. Justice and inclusion: Participation that shapes design and decisions, building legitimacy, and ownership. 2. Learning and reflection: Knowledge that grows from experience, and links personal insight with collective action. 3. Collaboration and coherence: Relationships that align actions and values across communities, institutions, and sectors. 4. Adaptive governance: Rules and finance that evolve with evidence and context. 5. Agency and leadership: Confidence, recognition, co-creation, and connection that turn participation into influence. These conditions are not a checklist. No single policy or project needs to address them all at once. What matters is alignment — ensuring that, across a portfolio, policies reinforce one another so that inclusion, learning, coherence, adaptability, and agency move in the same direction. 51 What this means for implementation For governments and delivery agencies, transformation depends on how biodiversity strategies are implemented, not only what they contain. Practical measures include: • Designing participation, co-creation, and justice into programmes from the start — as operating principles, not outreach after decisions are made. • Funding facilitation, reflection, and learning as core delivery activities. • Aligning environmental, social, and educational efforts to avoid fragmentation. • Building flexibility into financial and regulatory frameworks so learning leads to adaptation. • Supporting relatable role models and intergenerational exchange to sustain leadership and trust. For research and innovation funders, aligning investment with implementation means: • Making inclusion and equitable access part of funding criteria, ensuring that diverse actors can meaningfully participate, regardless of language, resources, or physical ability. • Requiring structured reflection and valuing learning outcomes alongside publications. • Supporting transdisciplinary and long-term partnerships that link research with practice. • Building the capacity of researchers and practitioners to bridge science, policy, and society through co-creation. Why it matters Transformative change is non-linear and context specific. It can advance unevenly, pause, or take unexpected forms. Without attention to equity, participation, and ethics, it can even reinforce inequality or exclusion. Yet, when guided by justice, learning, and collaboration, place-based initiatives — whether in classrooms, gardens, city offices, or boardrooms — can align into broader patterns of systemic change. Sectoral work in trade, finance, and fashion shows how such alignment can begin to shift market incentives and governance cultures. Europe already has many of the ingredients for this transformation. The task now is to connect them — linking community-level action, institutional learning, and policy reform — so that commitments to biodiversity translate into outcomes that are effective, equitable, and lasting for people and nature alike. Introduction Transformative change for biodiversity does not result from a single project or policy. It unfolds through the interaction of values, mindsets, actions, and the systems that support them. This research note synthesises and translates findings from the Horizon Europe PLANET4B project into practical guidance for those implementing biodiversity strategies and action plans across Europe (PLANET4B, n.d.). This policy note is designed to guide actors who are responsible for implementing the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) at the European Union (EU), and 58 The sector-based case studies mirrored this pattern. In the fashion and finance case studies, cross-disciplinary discussions exposed structural biases: dominant business models and financial incentives still reward short-term profit over ecological responsibility. Bringing designers, investors, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and researchers into the same room can help to reimagine incentives around circularity and sufficiency. Case study research on trade patterns between the EU and Brazil revealed how global markets offload biodiversity loss onto distant ecosystems, highlighting a need for equitable rules, greater transparency, and stronger accountability. The place-based case studies consistently underlined the importance of trust, joy, and recognition. Social bonding and small celebrations kept people engaged. Peer pressure also played a role: once a few schools, parishes, or companies took part, others followed, not only for visibility or reputation but also to feel part of a shared effort and to uphold emerging social norms around care for nature. The case studies used system-mapping tools to identify leverage points – policies, actors, and feedback loops that could magnify results. Visualising these interconnections clarified where cooperation was most needed and where blind spots remained (Loučková et al., 2025). The evidence suggests that scaling depends on coherence – social, ecological, and institutional – rather than simple replication. Effective initiatives aligned efforts across landscapes, communities, and governance levels, ensuring that actions reinforced one another instead of operating in isolation. While some replication of effective tools or practices can be useful, success depended on adapting them to local contexts and maintaining continuity with existing systems. The practical implication for policy is to fund cooperation and alignment across sectors, places, and ecosystems, rather than a proliferation of short projects that lose momentum and institutional learning once they end (see Chapter 4, 4.1 and 4.2). Redistributing power: Equity in governance Transformative change tests how power is held, shared, and used. As emphasised in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment, justice in its procedural, distributive, and recognitional dimensions is fundamental to lasting change. Equitable processes ensure inclusive participation; equitable outcomes determine how benefits and burdens are shared; and recognition of diverse worldviews and knowledge systems sustains legitimacy and trust over time. In Hungary, participatory teaching not only improved learning but also shifted school governance: teachers and pupils gained influence over how green spaces were managed. In Austria, community gardeners negotiated directly with the municipality about land use and maintenance, showing that citizen-led stewardship can shape urban policy and redistribute authority through practice. The sectoral case studies revealed similar dynamics on a larger scale. For example, case study research on the finance and trade sectors revealed how EU rules externalise ecological and social costs, reinforcing structural inequalities along global value chains and challenging entrenched market logics. Learning outcomes suggest 59 that real transformation requires engaging with these tensions rather than smoothing them over. “Win-win” framings hide the redistributive choices that justice demands. Participants also observed that the language of transformation can itself be co-opted into managerial or “tick-box” approaches, where participation becomes procedural rather than empowering. Equitable governance demands transparency about such risks and an active commitment to fostering safer spaces where disagreement and difference can be addressed openly. Institutional flexibility proved decisive. In Hungary’s seed networks, farmers were able to experiment with open-pollinated varieties despite restrictive legislation, as sympathetic officials allowed room for interpretation and adaptation. In Norway, recreation officers improved procurement rules so that accessibility became a mandatory criterion in public tenders. These examples illustrate how positional power – even within bureaucracies – can be used constructively to unlock innovation and enable structural change. Conflict, when managed transparently, often strengthened legitimacy by building trust in accountable governance systems. Public hearings or feedback sessions that exposed disagreements helped refine projects and build shared understanding. Transformative processes benefited when negotiating differences was framed as part of co-creation rather than as an obstacle. Financial and regulatory frameworks remain pivotal. Research from the finance case study confirmed that biodiversity is still treated as an externality in investment decisions. Redirecting subsidies away from harmful activities, and linking credit or taxation to biodiversity performance, are key steps toward transformation. This theme leads to the fourth policy implication: build adaptive, transparent, and equitable governance that learns and redistributes resources and responsibilities based on existing evidence while remaining responsive to new insights. Regulations that welcome experimentation and integrate accountability mechanisms are better suited to the long timescales of ecological recovery (see Chapter 4, 4.1). Agency: From participation to transformative capacity Agency is both the outcome and the driver of transformative change. It grows as people see the effects of their actions and recognise themselves as part of a wider effort. Across the PLANET4B case studies, agency was built through co-creation, trust, recognition, and continuity. This was particularly the case when participants in the learning communities were given roles and decision-making power in shaping activities and saw their efforts acknowledged. Over time, their confidence, competence, and commitment deepened. Across the PLANET4B case studies, participants who began as learners became organisers, mentors, or advocates. Young people in Germany evolved from game participants into project leaders, securing external funding for biodiversity initiatives of their own. Gardeners in Graz now collaborate with city planners on community-green design. Agency thus scaled in “fractal” form (O’Brien et al., 2023; Karner et al., 2025), replicating patterns of confidence across levels. 60 Emotions and relationships played a central role in strengthening agency. Participants often expressed frustration or anxiety about environmental loss, but also curiosity, joy, and pride in learning and collective achievements. In the UK case, for example, Dadima’s participants spoke of the delight of recognising bird species or simply feeling welcome in nature. Facilitators who made space for both positive and difficult emotions found that shared experience built trust and motivation. Hope was not abstract optimism but a practice of mutual support, collective effort, joy, and small, cumulative successes. Agency also extended across generations. School gardens linked teachers and pupils, while youth projects connected to elder mentors. These relationships carried knowledge and motivation forward. Institutions can amplify this intergenerational exchange by recognising informal and relational forms of leadership and by providing regular acknowledgment and guidance. Visible acknowledgment through certificates, feature stories, or public thanks helped participants see their contribution as meaningful. Equally, stable mentoring relationships turned individual enthusiasm into lasting capability and confidence. However, agency does not only enable change – it can also take the form of resistance to change, helping to sustain the status quo, particularly among those with existing power or secure positions in society. Recognising the dual nature of agency is crucial: it can foster inclusion and creativity, yet it can equally reinforce dominant systems and marginalise alternative visions of biodiversity governance. Addressing structural barriers and power asymmetries is therefore essential for agency to be transformative rather than conservative. The policy implication here is to invest in long-term human and institutional capacity for transformative agency, from facilitation and leadership training to peer learning and intergenerational exchange. However, such agency can only thrive when structural barriers are addressed and when rights to participation, expression, and environmental protection are safeguarded. In many contexts, those advocating change face resistance from entrenched interests or even personal risk. Legal and institutional safeguards that protect and promote civic space and environmental defenders are therefore essential complements to capacity-building efforts. Sustained investments of this kind ensure continuity across funding cycles, maintaining momentum, and linking personal motivation with systemic influence (see Chapter 4, 4.1 and 4.2). Synthesis: Connecting conditions for change Drawing on the eleven Transformative Change Stories, the validation workshops, and the wider thematic analysis, five interconnected conditions emerge as essential for enabling transformative change in biodiversity policy and practice: 1. Justice and inclusion: meaningful participation that shapes design and decisions and recognises intersecting social differences, with equitable distribution of resources. 2. Learning and reflection: behavioural and cultural shifts rooted in lived experience and continuous feedback loops. 3. Collaboration and coherence: networks and partnerships that link efforts across scales. 61 4. Adaptive governance: regulatory and financial systems that evolve with evidence. 5. Agency and leadership: confidence and connection that turn individual action into collective power and transformative capacity. Together, these conditions provide a practical roadmap for implementation. They show that transformation is not a linear process but one that develops through relationships, experimentation, reflection, and co-creation among people, institutions, and places. Justice and inclusion ensure that participation genuinely shapes priorities and decisions, building legitimacy, equity, and ownership. Learning and reflection allow individuals and institutions to adapt as they make sense of experience and change. Collaboration and coherence connect these processes across sectors and scales, turning isolated efforts into complementary ones that reinforce each other socially, ecologically, and institutionally. Adaptive governance creates the flexibility to evolve with evidence, redirecting incentives and resources toward restorative or regenerative practices. Finally, agency and leadership turn participation into influence: when people are recognised and supported as leaders, their actions accumulate into collective capability and power. Co-creation underpins all five conditions, providing the means through which diverse actors translate shared values into practice, align learning with context, and negotiate power and accountability more equitably. When grounded in trust, facilitation, sufficient time, and reflexivity, co-creation turns experimentation into institutional learning and connects personal motivation with systemic change. These five conditions also correspond closely to the strategies outlined in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment — offering a European perspective on how its global recommendations can be realised through practice. Together, they describe the enabling environment for just, effective, and durable biodiversity policy. The next chapter translates these conditions into practical policy and funding options for governments, institutions, and research programs seeking to implement the Convention on Biological Diversity at EU and Member State levels, showing how transformation can move from insight to implementation. Implementation options The delivery of biodiversity strategies and action plans is context dependent. The five enabling conditions identified in Chapter 3 — justice and inclusion, learning and reflection, collaboration and coherence, adaptive governance, and agency and leadership — interact and reinforce one another. Not every measure needs to address all five directly, but their interdependence means each should be considered in relation to the others. What matters is aligning actions so that, across portfolios and scales, the full set of conditions is progressively strengthened over time. The measures below are grouped by actor, but in practice their success depends on how they interconnect — reinforcing learning, fairness, coherence, adaptability, and agency across governance systems. 62 Delivery measures for implementers of biodiversity action plans These measures target those delivering the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, the Nature Restoration Regulation, and related national or sub-national action plans, including NBSAPs. They are most effective when implemented as part of an integrated approach that links learning, inclusion, and adaptive governance. Make justice and inclusion standard practice Participation should be designed into action plans from the outset rather than added as outreach once decisions are made. Doing so strengthens legitimacy, trust, and lasting uptake of measures. • Build participation into program design and delivery — as an operating principle, not as late-stage outreach. • Partner with locally trusted groups (including migrant-led, youth, disability, and faith-based organisations), not only large NGOs. • Budget for access: translation, childcare, transport, assistive needs, and other participation enablers. • Track who benefits using disaggregated data (gender, age, ethnicity, disability, income), and adjust where gaps persist. Intended outcome: Greater legitimacy, take-up, and continuity of measures, especially among groups most affected by environmental change. Embed learning and reflection in delivery • Schedule regular review cycles that bring practitioners, communities, and policymakers together to discuss what worked — and why. • Fund facilitation, mentoring, and structured reflection as core delivery activities. • Use experiential and creative engagement (gardens, living labs, storytelling, exhibitions) to connect action with meaning. • Monitor process as well as ecological results (e.g. participation quality, inclusion, reflection cycles). Intended outcome: Adaptive programs that stay relevant and improve over time, rather than restart with each funding round. Embedding learning also supports other enabling conditions — building trust for inclusion, coherence across partners, and the adaptive capacity needed to sustain change. Foster collaboration and social-ecological coherence • Create formal coordination across environment, agriculture, education, finance, and social portfolios. • Align delivery across ecologies – landscapes, watersheds, urban green networks – not just administrative boundaries. • Support municipal–community “safer spaces” that allow testing approaches under flexible rules before scaling. • Reward joint outcomes across departments and partners instead of isolated outputs. 63 Intended outcome: Actions reinforce one another across places and ecosystems, creating a network of initiatives that sustain promising practices beyond pilots and strengthen other enabling conditions. Build adaptive and equitable governance • Include review clauses so targets and methods can be adjusted without resetting programmes. • Use procurement and grant rules that allow co-creation and iteration, while safeguarding equity. • Reallocate harmful subsidies and align fiscal tools (tax, credit, guarantees) with nature-positive and socially just practices. • Protect civic space: ensure access to information, participation, and justice; safeguard environmental defenders and local stewards. Intended outcome: Governance that maintains trust, manages risk, and stays responsive to evidence and context. Strengthen agency and leadership to influence decisions • Build facilitation, mediation and co-creation skills within local authorities, schools, and community groups so they can meaningfully shape plans and decisions. • Support relatable role models — people whose lived experiences reflect those of their communities — to inspire others and demonstrate that diverse voices can influence outcomes. • Recognise informal leadership publicly (awards, feature stories, advisory or mentoring roles). • Promote plural, intergenerational and peer-learning networks that connect local insights to formal decision processes. Intended outcome: Agency becomes influence — diverse leaders help shape decisions and sustain transformation, grounding biodiversity action in shared ownership and everyday life. Delivery measures for research and innovation funders These measures align research investment with the needs of implementation and the enabling conditions above, recognising that funding approaches can strengthen multiple conditions at once — for example, linking inclusion with learning, or adaptability with collaboration. Centre inclusion and procedural justice in funding • Make equity, inclusion, and accessibility mandatory evaluation criteria. • Have budget lines for inclusive participation and specialist facilitation. • Fund community-based research that empowers local actors and grassroot initiatives as partners and agents. Intended outcome: Research agendas reflect diverse perspectives and gain legitimacy where results are applied. 64 Fund learning as a deliverable • Require and resource structured reflection (workshops, debriefs, and leaning briefs), and value them in reporting. • Evaluate the quality and continuity of learning processes, alongside their outcomes, social relevance, and practical use – not publications alone. Intended outcome: Results move into policy and practice faster, with clearer lessons across projects. Learning processes that include diverse voices also build agency and legitimacy, creating conditions for longer-term policy influence. Back collaboration and coherence at scale • Prioritise transdisciplinary proposals that connect arts-based, (co-)creative social and natural sciences with other societal actors. • Support long-term consortia and “learning infrastructures” (gardens, living labs, observatories, community learning spaces, multi-actor platforms) that anchor practice and knowledge in place and context. Intended outcome: Knowledge becomes comparable where context allows, and transferable across sectors and geographies through dedicated meta-learning and translation structures. Enable adaptive and responsible pathways in funding • Provide phased, flexible grants that integrate the core principles of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) — anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness — to allow course correction as evidence emerges. i Clear guardrails should ensure accountability as projects adjust. • Track harms and unintended effects early, and support adjustments through participatory review in line with findings. Intended outcome: Innovation without waste, agility with accountability, and flexibility that reinforces inclusion, learning, and equitable governance. Strengthen agency and leadership to bridge science, policy, and practice • Support selected training opportunities in facilitation, mediation, and co-creation for those researchers and practitioners whose roles involve engaging with policy or implementation. Others can contribute through collaboration within these interdisciplinary teams. • Value participatory, arts-based, serious-gaming, and other creative methods as legitimate research outputs, approaches, or designs that make biodiversity action tangible and inclusive. • Encourage legitimate and relatable role models and intermediaries — trusted figures who embody collaboration, respect, and equity — to engage in reciprocal learning exchanges that build shared understanding across disciplines, sectors, and generations. • Create exchange and secondment schemes that connect researchers, policymakers, artists, and practitioners to design and test solutions together. 65 Intended outcome: Research and innovation communities strengthen their collective agency — combining credibility, inclusiveness, and influence — to connect diverse forms of knowledge with real-world change for biodiversity and people. Cross-cutting delivery measures Transformation depends on shared responsibility and systemic coherence. Implementers, funders, and knowledge institutions can accelerate change when their actions align and reinforce one another, ensuring that all five enabling conditions remain connected and mutually supportive. Communicate through shared values • Link biodiversity with equity, dignity, care, and well-being — values that resonate across cultures and sectors. Frame messages in ways that connect ecological restoration with social justice and life experience. This strengthens motivation and helps bridge environmental, social, and economic agendas. Intended outcome: biodiversity goals feel relevant to people’s daily lives, building broad public and political support. Reframe delay and deviation as learning • View pauses, setbacks, or policy shifts as opportunities to reflect and adjust rather than as signs of failure. Make reflection routine — between project phases, across institutions, and among partners. Intended outcome: implementation becomes adaptive, maintaining momentum even under uncertainty. Encourage ethical and legitimate leadership • Support decision-makers and community leaders who model transparency, reciprocity, and humility. Recognise that credible leadership is relational — built through accountability, inclusion, and responsiveness, not status. Reward openness about challenges and the willingness to share power. Intended outcome: governance gains legitimacy and trust, enabling difficult choices to be made openly and equitably. Foster coalitions for collective influence • Connect governments, funders, civil society, academia, and business networks around long-term, shared outcomes. Co-creation platforms can align resources, reduce duplication, and turn small successes into broader system-level change. Intended outcome: cooperation across sectors multiplies impact, shifting biodiversity governance from compliance to collaboration. Keep equity and participation as constant checks • Ensure that as actions scale, they continue to benefit those most affected by environmental change. Use participatory monitoring and evaluation to detect exclusion early and to correct course collectively. 66 Intended outcome: transformation remains equitable and legitimate, not only effective. Conclusion From local practice to systemic change Transformative change is not a single breakthrough, but a continuous, often uneven process of realignment — between what societies value, how institutions act, and how power and resources are shared. The IPBES Transformative Change Assessment calls for this deep reorganisation, and PLANET4B’s evidence shows how it takes shape in practice across both local initiatives and sectoral systems that connect European societies to the wider world. While many of these initiatives began as small, place-based experiments, their significance lies in how they connect and influence wider systems. Transformation does not spread through replication alone, but through alignment — when policy, finance, and social learning reinforce one another across scales. In this sense, local experiments become testing grounds from which systemic change can grow. At the European level, this means reforming incentive systems — from agricultural and trade subsidies to public procurement, competitiveness, and investment criteria — so that they reward restoration, equity, and learning rather than short-term gains. Without such shifts in the rules of the game, transformative initiatives risk remaining exceptional rather than becoming the norm. Lessons from practice and policy Across Europe, place-based, well-supported initiatives have built trust, reconnected people with place, and created room for reflection and experimentation. At the same time, sectoral case studies in trade, finance, and fashion revealed how entrenched market incentives and regulatory frameworks externalise social and ecological costs, and how collaboration among governments, investors, businesses, and communities can start to change that logic. Together, these experiences demonstrate that transformation can emerge when behavioural, institutional, and structural change reinforce one another. Delivering the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework requires this systemic orientation: Recognising transformation as a non-linear process that evolves differently across contexts. Each starting point reflects distinct histories, capacities, and power relations. Progress may advance unevenly or take unexpected forms, but when guided by equity, inclusion, and care, it moves systems towards more just and durable outcomes. The dynamics of transformative change The elements illustrated in Figure 1 — shifting values, opening mindsets, amplifying actions, and redistributing power, held together by the growth of agency — remain central to this process. Transformation begins when values of care, dignity, and equity become visible in everyday choices, institutional routines, and business models. It deepens as mindsets open through learning, co-creation, and reflection across sectors and institutions. It gains force when collective actions align — from classrooms and communities to markets, supply chains, and public policies. And it endures when 67 governance redistributes not only power, but also resources, recognition, and accountability. Agency connects these dimensions. However, it is not automatically positive. It can resist as well as enable change, and it can entrench existing privileges or create new forms of exclusion if detached from justice and transparency. The task is to foster transformative agency — grounded in place, supported by law, and conscious of planetary interdependence — a form of planetary citizenship that turns local responsibility into global care. Caution and conditions for success The PLANET4B validation workshops also underscored that transformation is not automatically positive. When narrowly framed or poorly designed, so-called transformative initiatives can reproduce inequality or depoliticise change. Participants cautioned that focusing on a single dimension, such as gender or youth, without addressing intersecting aspects such as class, migration status, disability, or economic precarity risks reinforcing exclusion. They also noted that the language of transformation can be co-opted into managerial “tick-box” exercises. In this context, safe spaces rarely exist; only safer spaces, intentionally created, maintained, and reflexively governed, can enable genuine dialogue, accountability, and empowerment. Structural and economic conditions can likewise neutralise good intentions. Expecting transformation under unchanged trade, subsidy, and finance systems is unrealistic. Funders and policymakers therefore need mechanisms that anticipate uneven impacts, connect project-level innovation with reforms in markets and governance, and uphold justice alongside ecological ambition. Protecting civic space and environmental defenders is integral to this, ensuring that the freedom to participate and advocate for change is preserved. Responsibility for implementation Beyond governments and funders, research and practitioner communities have a vital role in sustaining this momentum. Embedding intersectionality, behavioural insights, and co-creative transformative change approaches in research and programme design can strengthen the bridge between knowledge, policy, and practice, ensuring that implementation is informed, reflexive, and equitable. Ultimately, transformative change is collective and relational work. It grows through many connected steps — beginning in gardens, schools, laboratories, and boardrooms, and extending through institutions, supply chains, and economies. When policy enables these connections, and when learning, equity, and care guide decisions, biodiversity action becomes not only more effective, but also more just, resilient, and deeply rooted in the societies and systems it seeks to transform.