Three comprehensive guidelines tailored for enabling players: civil society, policymakers and businesses. Report No. D5.8 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – 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 D5.8 Deliverable title Three comprehensive guidelines tailored for enabling players: civil society, policymakers and businesses Task leader Coventry University (CU) Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Three practical guidelines for each target group (civil society, policymakers and businesses) provide detail on potential transformative pathways, intersectionality context, behaviour and creative methods and communication tips on biodiversity. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 20/10/2025 Authors: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Lindy Binder (CU); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Ceire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); Jackie Abell (CU); Cristina Aoki Inoue (RU); Håkon Aspøy (NINA); David Barton (NINA); Mahsa Bazrafshan (FiBL); Genevieve Beaufoy (UNEP-WCMC); Maura Benegiamo (UNIPI); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Tuva Beyer Broch (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Judith Conway (CU); Maria Csikai (GD); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Katherine DespotBelmonte (UNEP-WCMC); Helen Figari (NINA); Andreas Flach (FUG); Ruth Fletcher (UNEP-WCMC); Sven Grüner (MLU); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Johan Hval (OOF); Edit Hunyadi (MLU); Robert Home (FiBL); Julian Jäger (MLU); Zsuzsanna Kiràly (GD); Berit Köhler (NINA); Mariann Kovács (ESSRG); Mirjam Krauser (FUG); Theresa Kühne (MLU); Julia Leventon (CG); Borbála Lipka 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 (ESSRG); Blanka Louckova (CG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Claire Lyons (CU); Milena Marchesi (RU); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Viktória Monhor (GD); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); Noor A. Noor (UNEP-WCMC); Patricia Ofori-Amanfo (CG); György Pataki (ESSRG); Andreea-Cezara Pletea (TEHRA); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Katharina Santer (FUG); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Mirjam Schleiffer (FiBL); Christina Seliger (FUG); Dmitriy Shorin (MLU); Elif Tugba Simsek (CG); Barbara Smith (CU); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Anna Olga Syverhuset (NINA); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Gyula Gábor Tóth (GD); Thiago Uehara (UNEP-WCMC); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Simeon Vaňo (CG); Ingrid VisserenHamakers (RU); Torsten Wähler 0.2 Draft 10/11/2025 Reviewer: PLANET4B Consortium 0.3 Draft 11/11/2025 Authors: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU) 0.4 Draft 11/11/2025 Reviewer: Lindy Binder (CU) 1.0 Final 18/11/2025 Reviewer: Edit Hunyadi (MLU) Recommended citation Zolyomi, A., Franklin, A., Binder, L., Karner, S., Kelemen, E., Booth, C., Aas-Hanssen, A. E., Abell, J., Aoki Inoue, C., Aspøy, H., Barton, D., Bazrafshan, M., Beaufoy, G., Benegiamo, M., Bolsø, R., Bonetti, M., Bredin, Y., Beyer Broch, T., Brown, G., Brunori, G., Bykova, M., Chudy, R. P., Conway, J., Csikai, M., Czett, K., Despot-Belmonte, K., Figari, H., Flach, A., Fletcher, R., Grüner, S., Gundersen, V., Gronda, R., Hval, J., Hunyadi, E., Home, R., Jäger, J., Kiràly, Z., Köhler, B., Kovács, M., Krauser, M., Kühne, T., Leventon, J., Lipka, B., Louckova, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Lyons, C., Marchesi, M., Mendes, V., Monhor, V., Motschiunig, A., Navarro Gambín, P., Noor, N. A., Ofori-Amanfo, P., Pataki, G., Pletea, A.-C., Podlaszewska, A., Sabir, G., Santer, K., Saydaliev, Z., Schleiffer, M., Seliger, C., Shorin, D., Simsek, E. T., Smith, B., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Syverhuset, A. O., Tennhardt, L., Thaler, A., Tóth, G. G., Uehara, T., Vergamini, D., Villa, M., Vaňo, S., Visseren-Hamakers, I., Wähler, T. (2025). Three comprehensive guidelines tailored for enabling players: civil society, policymakers and businesses. Report No D5.8 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17243432 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 PLANET4B team would like to thank everyone who contributed to the development of the materials that underpin these three guidelines – including project partners, collaborators, and the many volunteer research participants whose insights, experiences and reflections shaped the work. Their contributions have been vital in grounding the guidelines in lived realities and diverse contexts. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CAC The Climate Academy CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC. ESG Environmental, Social and Governance ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening GD GoodIssue nonprofit Ltd. GDPR General Data Protection Regulation IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF Oslo og Omland Frilfutsråd – Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RU Radboud University UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa WP Work Package 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Table of Contents ....................................................................................................... 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 2 Methodological approach ....................................................................................... 3 3 Guidelines for Key Enabling Players .................................................................... 4 4 Conclusion and outlook ......................................................................................... 5 References .................................................................................................................. 7 Statement on data availability ................................................................................... 7 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................... 7 Annex A. Making Change for Biodiversity and People: Tools and Strategies for Civil Society Organisations and Community Leaders to Make Biodiversity Matter .......................................................................................................................... 8 Annex B. Making Change in Policy: Tools and Strategies for Policymakers to Make Biodiversity a Shared Priority ....................................................................... 26 Annex C. Making Change at Work: Tools and Strategies for Businesses to Make Biodiversity Matter ......................................................................................... 44 2 Executive summary This report presents three tailored guidelines to support transformative biodiversity action. The guidelines: • Support CSOs, policymakers and businesses in enabling systemic change. • Offer practical tools for embedding biodiversity into everyday decisions and routines. • Emphasise relational, inclusive and context-sensitive approaches to transformation. • Are designed to be flexible, enabling context-sensitive action and long-term impact. 1 Introduction The continued loss of biodiversity presents not only an ecological crisis but a societal one – undermining the foundations of well-being, resilience and justice, across communities, economies and ecosystems (IPBES 2022, 2024; Kaijser & Kronsell, 2016). While technical solutions remain essential, they are not sufficient (Soliev et al., 2025). Biodiversity loss is shaped by deeper, less visible forces: social norms, institutional habits, economic logics, and behavioural patterns that influence how nature is understood, valued and acted upon in everyday decisions (Kubiszewski et al., 2023; Leventon et al., 2021). Responding to this challenge, the PLANET4B project has focused on enabling transformative change – change that addresses both immediate drivers and the deeper systemic conditions that shape biodiversity outcomes. This includes attention to indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such as cultural narratives, governance routines, and the ways in which people relate to nature, each other, and the future. Central to PLANET4B’s approach has been the recognition that transformation is not the responsibility of one sector or actor alone. It requires the active participation of diverse enabling players – including civil society organisations, policymakers and businesses – who shape decisions, practices and priorities across scales. These actors are not only implementers of change; they are framers of meaning, builders of relationships and enablers of system-level shifts. To support these enabling players, PLANET4B has developed three audience-specific guidelines, each tailored to the distinct roles, capacities and contexts of civil society, policy and business actors. These guidelines are not generic toolkits. They are grounded in the lived realities of biodiversity decision-making, informed by participatory research across 11 case studies, and shaped by behavioural insights, systems thinking and intersectional analysis. Each guideline offers practical strategies for making biodiversity matter – not only in policy documents or sustainability reports, but in everyday conversations, decisions and routines. They introduce methods for identifying leverage points, fostering shared care, and embedding biodiversity into organisational and institutional cultures. They also reflect the project’s commitment to plural values, inclusive participation and cocreated pathways for change. 3 This report (Deliverable 5.8) presents the guidelines as standalone annexes, accompanied by a synthesis of their shared foundations and development process. It is intended to support both the use and understanding of the guidelines, and to situate them within the broader aims of PLANET4B: to enable transformative biodiversity action through relational, reflexive and system-aware approaches. 2 Methodological approach The development of the three guidelines was grounded in a multi-layered process that drew on conceptual, methodological and empirical insights generated across PLANET4B’s work packages (WP). Rather than producing generic recommendations, the aim was to create audience-specific guidance that is both scientifically robust and practically usable by key enabling players. To achieve this, the guidelines synthesised outputs from four core strands of the project’s work programme: • WP1 – Conceptual Foundations: Reviews of behavioural and social science theories, systems thinking, and intersectionality frameworks provided the theoretical basis for understanding indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and identifying leverage points for change (Deliverable 1.1; Deliverable 1.3; Deliverable 1.7). • WP2 – Methods Development: The guidelines were informed by the full programme of work undertaken to identify, adapt and document detailed protocols for individual methods, as well as by the synthesis of insights on how these methods can be combined effectively in practice (Deliverable 2.4). This included creative, deliberative and behavioural approaches such as framing, nudging, experiential learning and a wide variety of participatory techniques, which underpin the practical tools featured in the guidelines. • WP3 – Empirical Case Studies: Participatory research across 11 case studies generated rich insights into how biodiversity priorities can be advanced in diverse contexts. Workshops combined system mapping, leverage point identification, and narrative co-design, offering evidence of what works in practice (Deliverable 3.2; Deliverable 3.3). • WP4 – Policy and Scaling Analysis: Findings from earlier WPs were connected to EU and global policy processes, highlighting opportunities for institutional anchoring and upscaling beyond project sites (Deliverables 4.14.4). The development of the guidelines was an iterative process of synthesis and cocreation. Insights from the four PLANET4B work packages were reviewed to identify recurring themes and actionable patterns. This process involved: • Mapping conceptual foundations to practical needs: Behavioural and systems-based theories were translated into accessible language and linked to real-world entry points for action. • Drawing on tested methods and protocols: Rather than adapting methods for specific audiences, the guidelines incorporate insights from the extensive work undertaken across project Task 2.2, and more recently Task 5.5, to identify, refine and document detailed protocols for individual methods, as well 4 as from the synthesis of behavioural and creative approaches compiled in the Catalogue of Methods (Deliverable 2.4) and featured on the Care-full Courses lighthouse education platform (Deliverable 5.9). These resources provided a tested foundation for practical tools that can be applied across organisational, policy and community contexts. • Cross-case learning and synthesis: Lessons from 11 case studies (Deliverable 3.3) were central to shaping the guidelines. Analysis of these cases highlighted the conditions that enable biodiversity-positive change, including legitimacy signals, experiential connection, demonstrable outcomes, and institutional anchoring. The Transformative Change Stories provided rich, context-specific examples of how these conditions were enacted in practice, offering evidence of what works and why. These insights informed both the thematic framing and the practical recommendations in each guideline. • Tailoring for audience specificity: While the guidelines share common foundations, each was adapted to reflect the distinct roles, capacities and leverage points of civil society organisations, policymakers and businesses. Throughout this process, three principles have guided the work: • Co-creation and Inclusivity: The guidelines are shaped by participatory insights, ensuring that diverse voices and lived experiences inform both content and framing. • Practical Usability: Recommendations have been designed to be actionable within existing structures and routines, avoiding approaches that require significant new resources or mandates. • Alignment with Transformative Change: Each guideline supports shifts not only in behaviour but in underlying norms, narratives and institutional practices, consistent with PLANET4B’s systems-thinking approach. The result is a set of tools and strategies that combine scientific rigour with practical relevance, enabling key actors to make biodiversity a shared priority in ways that are meaningful, feasible and durable. 3 Guidelines for Key Enabling Players The annexes to this report present the three comprehensive guidelines developed to support transformative biodiversity action by key enabling players: civil society organisations (CSOs), policymakers and businesses. Each guideline is tailored to the distinct roles and capacities of its intended audience, while sharing the core principles, conceptual frames and methodological approaches described in Section 2 of this report (see above). These foundations provide coherence across the three documents while allowing flexibility for context-specific application. The following provides as a brief overview of each guideline: • Guideline for Civil Society Organisations: This guideline focuses on how CSOs and community leaders can strengthen belonging, agency and shared care within communities, while influencing governance processes through relational approaches. It introduces practical methods for creating safe and inclusive spaces, building identity and trust, and connecting biodiversity to everyday life through experiential and cultural practices. The document also Table of Contents What do we Mean by Transformative Change? 4 The Five Core Conditions for Transformative Change 6 Hacking the System: How to See Where to Intervene 8 for Biodiversity and People? Practical Methods you can Use to Support 10 Transformative Change for Biodiversity and People Influencing Systems: From Community Action 12 to Governance and Public Narratives Growing and Sustaining Change (Without Exhaustion) 14 Evaluation and Learning 16 Continuing Connecting Nature and People 17 For Further Inspiration 17 4 What do we Mean by Transformative Change? We are living in a time of deep environmental and social change. Species are disappearing, ecosystems are degrading and climate impacts are increasing. At the same time, many people experience insecurity, inequality, displacement and exclusion from decisions that affect their lives. Many organisations are already doing good work for nature and communities. Yet biodiversity loss continues, and inequalities persist. This shows that information alone does not change behaviour. The IPBES (Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services) Transformative Change Assessment explains why: Biodiversity loss continues because the underlying views, systems and power structures have not changed. Most of us were raised in societies where nature is seen as separate from people and economic growth comes before care. Value is measured in profit rather than wellbeing, and policy decisions are made far away from everyday life. Transformative change means changing these deeper patterns not necessarily by one big reform, but through many small shifts that add up – over time. Transformative change can happen when relationships, norms and meanings change and institutions slowly start to listen, learn and adapt. Big or Small? People often think transformation must be huge. But PLANET4B showed that it can start small – in everyday places where people learn, gather, cook, play, move, and imagine together. And these small shifts grow into bigger changes when they are shared, recognised, and supported by communities and institutions. This is exactly where civil society organisations (CSOs) are strong. This is the work that you are already doing. You build the relationships, trust, belonging and shared meaning that can make biodiversity matter to people even more. This guide helps make this more strategic, visible and lasting, by providing the core conditions of transformative change, identifying entry points for change, providing practical methods and examples of engagement, as well as of campaigning and advocacy tools and upscaling actions and impacts. Why these Examples Matter for You These examples show that transformative change does not necessarily start with new institutions, new funds or new “capacity”, it can start with what people already have: stories, places, care, togetherness. It grows when care becomes shared, when shared care becomes recognised and when recognition becomes supported by governance. grows when becomes recognised becomes supported by Care Shared Care Recognition Governance 5 Table 1: What Transformative Change can look like in practice Level Individuals Communities Institutions (schools, municipalities, networks) PLANET4B Example In Erfurt, Germany, Culture Goes Europe (a German NGO) worked with young people (many with migrant and international backgrounds) through nature walks, experiential games, shared meals and reflection circles. Young people moved from “nature is not for me” to leading biodiversity activities and projects. They gained agency, confidence and ecological curiosity. In Hungary, Environmental Social Science Research Group (ESSRG) and Magház (Seed house) worked with gardeners, farmers, cooks and families to revitalise open-pollinated seeds as shared cultural heritage. The “Unknown Delicacies” cookbook and storytelling gatherings honoured seed histories, recipes, memory and place – transforming seeds from “objects” into carriers of identity, care and belonging. This strengthened shared responsibility for agrobiodiversity and grew an even more caring community of seed stewards. In Graz, Austria, community gardens were initially tolerated by the municipality with limited support. They were often dismissed as “hobby projects”, and the challenges they faced under existing conditions received little attention. New majority ratios have shifted political priorities. The new urban agenda for promoting social and ecological urban development was taken up by the Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology Work and Culture (IFZ) and the Forum Urbanes Gärtnern (FUG). Through active exchange and cooperation with city stakeholders and community groups, collectively managed gardens and community initiatives became an integral part of the city’s local planning and support programmes. This strengthened cultural ties, social wellbeing, and biodiversity, making change stable and lasting. What It Means in Practice Someone begins to see themselves as part of nature and believes their actions matter People start acting together (gardening, restoring, planning, storytelling, or organising) Decision-makers begin to listen to lived experience and support what communities already know works 6 The Five Core Conditions for Transformative Change Transformative change is not a mystery. Across the PLANET4B cases, the same five conditions repeatedly enabled lasting, meaningful action for biodiversity and people. They are simple but powerful and you can cultivate them intentionally. 1. Safe and Welcoming Spaces What it means: People take part when they feel safe, included and respected, and when every voice is heard. This means emotional safety, practical accessibility, and space where no one fears being judged. PLANET4B example: In Erfurt (Germany), youth began to participate more actively when meetings created space for warm welcomes, shared meals and laughter – not just task discussions. When people felt safe and valued, they took initiative. What CSOs can do now: • Start every gathering with a simple “check-in” round. • Agree on shared principles like listenfully,no interruptions,allexperiencesarevalid. • Make sure every voice is heard — especially quiet ones. • Consider the “intersectionality lens” by asking questions such as: o Who is not participating yet? o How accessible is our space? o What barriers might we unintentionally reproduce? o Whose knowledge counts? 2. Shared Experiences and Learningby-Doing People connect to biodiversity through embodied, hands-on experiences: walking, planting, cooking, observing – not only through discussion. PLANET4B example: In Hungary, the seed and cooking sessions made biodiversity tangible – people touched seeds, painted plants, cooked together, and shared memories of taste and place. What CSOs can do now: • Begin with a shared practical activity. • Let learning be sensory — smell, touch, listen, taste and see. • Reflect together on what you notice, experience and feel. 3. Identity, Belonging, and Agency People act when biodiversity feels personal, part of identity, memory, and everyday life, not something distant or “for others”. PLANET4B example: In the UK, Dadima’s CIC worked with Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities1 who often felt that nature spaces were not welcoming to them. Through shared walks, stories of place, and intergenerational conversation, participants reconnected with plants, landscapes and seasons as part of their heritage, dignity and identity. People expressed: “We belong in nature too.” This shift built confidence, pride and a sense of rightful presence in nature. What CSOs can do now: • Ask which foods, plants, smells, or landscapes carry memory or cultural meaning. • Let participants’ cultural knowledge lead the conversation, not external expertise. • Reinforce belonging: “Nature is ours. We are part of it.” 1. Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic communities or ‘BAME’ is frequently used to group all ethnic minorities. The term can disguise differences in outcomes between ethnic groups. Many ethnic minorities themselves say they do not like the term ‘BAME’, a finding reinforced by recent research commissioned by the Cabinet Office Race Disparity Unit (RDU) 7 4. Collaboration and Shared Leadership Change becomes stronger when roles and knowledge are shared, not held by one expert, facilitator, or organisation. PLANET4B example: In Oslo, researchers participated in outdoor activities organised by others and held workshops with young people with disabilities, parents and NGO representatives. Through these experiences, the team gained a deeper understanding of how accessibility and inclusion can be addressed in concrete ways, by considering routes, pace, resting points and equipment, but also how adaptation and inclusion can go far beyond such practical adjustments. This bottom-up approach showed that inclusion is not only about removing obstacles, but about reimagining participation itself, turning what are often seen as limitations into opportunities for creativity, confidence and shared ownership. What CSOs can do now: • Invite participants early – before plans are fixed. • Rotate small roles to grow leadership gently. • Value practical, cultural and lived knowledge equally with scientific knowledge. 5. Institutional Anchoring For change to last, it needs recognition and support from institutions and other structures. PLANET4B example: In Graz (Austria), community gardens gained stability and longevity once the municipality recognised them as valuable spaces of social inclusion and biodiversity. What CSOs can do now: • Document and share stories and outcomes using simple language. • Actively approach institutions with a concern and its solution and anticipate co-creation. • Ask for small amounts of support first (water access, shared tools, meeting space). 8 Hacking the System: How to See Where to Intervene for Biodiversity and People? When working for biodiversity and justice, it is easy to feel that problems are “too big” or “too complex”. Change is possible when we understand how things are connected. We need to understand the system around us. A system is simply the network of relationships, habits, values and decisions that shape what happens in a place. Understanding the system helps us see: • Why some bad practices continue even when people want change • Why some voices are missing in decisionmaking • Where culture, identity, economy, place and power intersect And importantly, • Where a small shift can make a big difference This is where leverage or entry points come in. What are Leverage Points? A leverage point is a place in the system where an intervention can lead to a bigger shift. Not everything has the same effect. Some actions are useful but limited. Others can change how people relate, choose, or decide together – and where values and mindsets may change. In simple terms, a leverage point is the place where your effort can have the strongest longterm impact. How to Map the System and Entry Points? Transformative change becomes possible when we understand how things are connected in the place where we want change to happen. In PLANET4B, we aimed to see the system clearly and identify where a small, thoughtful shift could make a wider difference through a two-step process2. Based on 12 Leverage Points for Intervening in a System (Meadows 1999) The system map of the Swiss Agro-biodiversity and religion case study (Author: FiBL) 2. To find more step-by-step instructions on how to do this, check out this PLANET4B Methodology Guide for Task 3.2, page 90. https://planet4b.eu/project-documents/report-on-the-system-mapping-and-leverage-points-for-each-case Step 1 - Understanding and Mapping the Systems To understand a given system you want to intervene in, gather people who may see the situation differently – for example, residents, experts, policymakers, youth, businesses, minority groups – and draw together how things currently work. You can draw on a big sheet of paper: • Who is involved? • Who is affected? • Who makes decisions? Farmers recognise and practice their values in relation to biodiversity Food values Financial needs and incetives Independence Beauty Personal experience Relationship to nature Political and community support Differences in farmers’ values Sustainability for future generations Love Marketability of producers Knowledge & training, schools Religious & spiritual beliefs Soil quality & ease of production Conflicting goals Religious institutions Businesses Sustainability concerns Environmental issues in society Economic viability NGOs & associations Alternative business models Political engagements Economy Industry 9 • What everyday habits shape how nature is treated? • What is helping? • What is blocking or limiting care? The drawing does not need to be tidy or correct. The purpose is to see the situation together and notice patterns that nobody can see alone. Shared understanding opens space for shared action. Step 2 - Identify Leverage Points (Where to Intervene) Once the map is on the table, look at it together and ask: • Where is something stuck? • Where is there potential, interest or existing care? • Where could a small, realistic change open up space for biodiversity and fairness? A leverage point is a place in the system where a small shift could have a bigger ripple effect. Choosing a leverage point to address does not mean solving everything. It means choosing a place to begin that has real potential to grow. We map to see clearly. We identify leverage points to act wisely. Why These Leverage Points Work They are: • Small — easy to try without major funding • Relational — they change how people feel and interact • Cultural — they shift meaning, not just tasks • Strengthening — they increase confidence, belonging and shared ownership These are the kinds of changes that grow, because they make care visible, shared, recognised and embedded in everyday life. Table 2: Examples of Leverage Points and Interventions Identified Through System Mapping Case / Context Erfurt, Germany Youth & Nature Belonging Hungarian School Garden GAIA Gartenberg Women’s Garden, Graz, Austria Leverage Point Identified Belonging and identity in nature (not knowledge) Embedding care into everyday school routines Creating safe, women-led spaces What the System Map Showed Intervention Chosen Why This Can Have a Bigger Impact Young people, especially with migrant backgrounds, felt that nature spaces were “not for us” due to past exclusion and cultural distance. Shared food, group walks, and reflection circles, followed by introduction of biodiversity messages. Builds confidenceand emotional safety, making nature feel accessible and relevant, which in turn reinforces engagement and encourages a sense of belonging. School gardening depended on one motivated teacher and was seen as an extra activity, not part of learning. If the teacher left, the garden would collapse. Regular garden time added into the weekly schedule, instead of relying on volunteer motivation. Makes biodiversity part of the school’s identity and rhythm, ensuring continuity and shared responsibility. Green spaces are not equally accessible. Many women, especially with low income, migration experience or limited German, are excluded from urban environmental activities and related decision-making. Biodiversity and gardening opportunities were not accessible. Establishment of the GAIA Gartenberg women’s garden accompanied by a series of cocreative workshops linking gardening, storytelling, and intercultural dialogue about biodiversity and everyday life. Enables participants to build confidence, skills, and ecological awareness. Sharing experiences publicly and connecting with municipal actors, influences local discussions on greenspace governance and inclusive participation. 10 Practical Methods you can Use to Support Transformative Change for Biodiversity and People The following methods help create the conditions we described earlier: • safety • shared experience • belonging • shared leadership • lasting anchoring Think of these as gentle starting points, which are easy to try, low in effort, high in meaning, and adaptable to your context. Method 1 — Story Circle Purpose: Build trust, belonging and emotional safety. When to use: At the beginning of a new group, before planning, or when reconnecting after breaks. How to do it (simple): Invite everyone to share a short personal story about a place, plant, food, or memory connected to nature. Use a talking object (a seed, leaf, stone) that is passed around. One person speaks at a time. Others listen. Reflection prompts: • How did it feel to listen? • What did you learn that surprised you? • What connects us in what we shared? Method 2 — Shared Walk Purpose: Create embodied connection and gentle presence in nature (supporting shared experience). When to use: Before discussion, planning, or decision-making – to ground the group. How to do it (simple): Go for a slow walk together. Notice what is growing, changing, decaying, surviving. Pause to look, feel, smell and listen. Keep talking light and optional. Reflection prompts: • What changed in how the place felt? • Where did you feel calmness, curiosity or care? • Did anything remind you of home or a memory? Method 3 — Food/Seed/Memory Sharing Purpose: Connect biodiversity to identity, culture and everyday life (supporting belonging). When to use: When people say “Nature is not about me” or “This is too abstract”. 11 How to do it (simple): Invite participants to bring a food, seed, recipe, or photo from their life. Encourage sharing of the stories behind them, not just the objects. Reflection prompts: • What values, memories, or relationships live in this food or seed? • How is biodiversity carried in culture? • What does this say about who we are? Method 4 — Co-Visioning Small Future Changes Purpose: Create agency and direction, but without needing a “big plan” (supporting leadership). When to use: After trust or belonging has begun. How to do it (simple): Ask: “What small change would make this place more caring for people and nature?” List ideas. Choose one that is simple, possible and meaningful. Reflection prompts: • What feels doable now? • Who else do we need to involve? • How will we know it is working? Method 5 — Small Action Prototyping Purpose: Move from ideas to doing, without pressure (supporting anchoring). When to use: After co-visioning. How to do it (simple): Try one small action for 1–4 weeks. Keep it light, experimental and shared. Examples: • starting a weekly tea-and-garden gathering • hosting a seed swap table in the library • co-creating a shared herb bed in a courtyard Reflection prompts: • What changed in the group? • What felt natural? What felt forced? • Do we want to grow this, adjust it, or close it with gratitude? For detailed facilitation instructions, variations, accessibility considerations and timing, please refer to the Community Based Social Marketing (CBSM) method – one of the Care-full Resources produced in PLANET4B. This manual is your map. The searchable directory of Care-full Resources is your toolbox. After completing a method, consider whether it might be appropriate to celebrate and appreciate what has been achieved. This could include sharing results with others. 12 Influencing Systems: From Community Action to Governance and Public Narratives Transformative change grows from relationships – but it becomes lasting when it is also reflected in how decisions are made, how groups organise, and how issues are talked about publicly. This section offers three pathways CSOs and community organisations can use, depending on context, capacity and opportunity. Pathway 1 – Working with Local Institutions (Schools, Municipalities, Cultural and Community Centres, Churches) Local institutions shape everyday life. Changing how they recognise, support, and value biodiversity, can make change durable. How to begin • Start with listening sessions (not persuasion) • Share stories and lived experience, not reports • Ask for small, concrete support first (e.g., space, access to water or tools, symbolic recognition) These small recognitions are often the first step to long-term change. When institutions listen, practices become anchored and do not disappear when individuals change. Pathway 2 – Building Community Networks and Coalitions No single organisation can transform a system alone. Networks make change resilient and less personal. How to build a network • Invite organisations to connect through shared practice (e.g., gardening days, seed festival, storytelling circle) not just meetings. • Map who is already doing something within the neighbourhood or community; avoid duplication. • Rotate hosting to prevent exhaustion. • Share credit and responsibility, not just workload. The goal is not to unify everyone. The goal is to support each other while celebrating different organisational identities. Networks expand agency and reduce the risk of burnout. Pathway 3 – Shaping Public Narrative (Campaigns, Culture, Media, Messaging) Societal change does not only come from “more awareness,” but rather from changing how issues are understood and felt. Effective biodiversity narratives come from: • Care, not crisis • Belonging, not alienation • Possibility, not fear • People’s stories, not only universal facts and numbers In practice • Use local voices, faces, foods, memories, landscapes. • Begin with what people already care for, not what they “should” care about. • Work with local media, community radio, schools, faith spaces, libraries, festivals, cultural events. Narratives change when biodiversity becomes part of identity and everyday meaning. How to Talk about Biodiversity in Ways that Inspire Care Our research on how biodiversity is spoken about in public, news media and everyday conversations shows a clear pattern: Most people care about nature but the way biodiversity is usually talked about can accidentally create distance, guilt or helplessness. 26 Annex B. Making Change in Policy: Tools and Strategies for Policymakers to Make Biodiversity a Shared Priority POLICYMAKERS Making Change in Policy Tools and Strategies for Policymakers to Make Biodiversity a Shared Priority Foreword Biodiversity is increasingly referenced in strategies and commitments. Yet this recognition does not automatically translate into everyday policy practice. In many institutions, biodiversity is still associated mainly with conservation or compliance, and is not yet seen as relevant to finance, planning, infrastructure, economic development or health. As a result, it may be acknowledged at the strategic level, but not fully considered in the day-to-day decisions that shape regulation. Across ministries, agencies and governance levels, biodiversity also carries different meanings. For some it relates to nature protection; for others to rural livelihoods, climate adaptation or cultural identity. These understandings are all valid – but when they remain unconnected, coordination and shared action become difficult. The challenge is therefore twofold: to strengthen shared understanding, and to make biodiversity actionable within existing roles, priorities and policy processes. This guide is for policymakers working to ensure that biodiversity is not only acknowledged, but actively integrated into agenda-setting, everyday decisions and resource allocation. It draws on insights from PLANET4B, which worked with public institutions, communities and businesses to understand how biodiversity can be prioritised in decision-making. This guide offers tools for: • Framing biodiversity in ways that build shared language and relevance across sectors • Aligning biodiversity with existing policy priorities, rather than creating new ones • Introducing small, feasible steps that demonstrate value • Anchoring progress structurally, so it endures beyond individual champions or project cycles The aim is to support realistic, steady and durable progress – starting from where things already are and adjusting the conditions for biodiversity to grow into a shared and actionable policy priority. We hope you find this guide useful in your work to shape policies that sustain the well-being of people and the living world we depend on. The PLANET4B Coordination Team Table of Contents What Policymakers Identify as Key Barriers 4 to Prioritising Biodiversity Current Frames of Biodiversity Inside Policy 5 Moving Biodiversity Across Policy Silos 6 and Decision Processes Practical Tools for Advancing Biodiversity in Policy Work 10 Embedding Biodiversity into Structures and 14 Cycles (Ensuring Continuity) Working with Institutional Rhythms and Timing 15 Looking Forward: Designing Policies that Enable 16 Biodiversity (and People) Closing Reflection 17 For Further Inspiration 17 4 What Policymakers Identify as Key Barriers to Prioritising Biodiversity Across consultations undertaken during the PLANET4B project, policymakers noted that biodiversity often struggles to gain practical traction not only because of structural factors, but also because political commitment can be limited or uneven. In some contexts, biodiversity is seen as a secondary concern, a compliance matter, or an issue that can be deferred. This means that both systemic conditions (such as mandates, workloads and procedures) and political priorities (what is seen as urgent, visible or advantageous) shape what becomes possible in practice. Several consistent themes emerged: • Biodiversity is understood and spoken about differently across sectors, which makes shared action more complex. • Policy agendas often focus on issues that appear more immediate or easier to measure and justify. • Workloads and administrative procedures make it difficult to consider biodiversity unless it can be connected to existing tasks. • Progress frequently relies on individual champions, which makes biodiversity gains vulnerable to turnover or shifting priorities. These barriers can be addressed through shared language, alignment of priorities, small strategic steps, and structural anchoring – all of which this guide supports. This landscape means that progress requires both strategic communication and framing to build commitment and shared understanding. It also requires practical policy entry points that make biodiversity easier to act on within existing roles, processes and constraints. The next section focuses on how to communicate biodiversity inside government in ways that strengthen commitment, create alignment and make collaboration possible. Table 1: Barriers Policymakers Highlighted during PLANET4B Consultations Uneven political commitments Different understandings of biodiversity across sectors Competing policy priorities and crisis agendas Limited administrative capacity and time Fragmented mandates and unclear responsibility Short policy cycles and leadership turnover Limited prioritisation, weak mandates, and little support for implementation. Coordination becomes slow; misunderstandings and duplication occur. Biodiversity becomes secondary, postponed or reframed as “later” work. Biodiversity integration is perceived as “additional work”, not built-in. Progress depends on personal initiative and can stall without coordination. Gains are fragile unless they are structurally embedded. Biodiversity is treated as optional, symbolic, or secondary to economic or crisis agendas. Ministries and agencies use different terms, framings and assumptions. Economic stability, energy, health and climate often dominate attention. Staff manage high workloads; new tasks feel unmanageable. Several departments share responsibility without a single lead. Political and staffing changes reset priorities and direction. Barrier Impact on Biodiversity Action What This Looks Like in Practice 5 Current Frames of Biodiversity Inside Policy Because biodiversity is understood differently across sectors, how it is communicated inside institutions matters. Communication in this context is rather about creating shared understanding so that different departments and policy domains can work together more easily. Biodiversity Holds Different Meanings Across Policy Areas Research in PLANET4B shows that biodiversity is understood in multiple ways depending on policy context, professional background and institutional roles. Across the project’s 11 case studies, interviews and discourse analysis, biodiversity appeared differently. Biodiversity is not one concept with one meaning. Rather, it carries different significance depending on sectoral priorities and institutional mandates. These meanings are not wrong - but often they are fragmented and if they remain unconnected, shared action is difficult. The communication task, therefore, is not to unify the meaning, but to make the different interpretations visible and connectable. Table 2: Meanings of Biodiversity in Different Policy Areas Policy Domain / Actor Group Environment / Conservation Agriculture & Rural Development Water, Infrastructure & Spatial Planning Climate & Adaptation Policy Culture & Education Finance & Economic Policy How Biodiversity Appears to be Commonly Understood As the protection and recovery of species, habitats and ecological processes. Biodiversity as part of the conditions that sustain productive and liveable rural environments, including continuity of landscapes, livelihoods and knowledge traditions. As part of how landscapes function, influencing flood risk, erosion, and the organisation of space, influencing how environments support everyday life. As a resource that supports stability and resilience in the face of climate change. As heritage, identity and belonging to place. Biodiversity as connected to financial long-term stability and risk, though often under-recognised due to reporting gaps and cognitive biases. Table 1: (continued) Few visible, feasible examples Biodiversity often framed as cost rather than value Uncertainty around measurement, indicator mismatch, unclear reporting requirements Decision-makers hesitate to commit without proven precedents. Biodiversity is deprioritised unless linked to resilience, efficiency or opportunity. Action slows when reporting requirements are unclear. Proposals can appear abstract, complex or large-scale. Economic and performance narratives override ecosystem considerations. Biodiversity benefits are often local, long-term or qualitative, while available indicators and reporting expectations are unclear or mismatched. Barrier Impact on Biodiversity Action What This Looks Like in Practice 6 Moving Biodiversity Across Policy Silos and Decision Processes Biodiversity is not yet widely recognised as a practical policy concern in many institutions. In numerous ministries, agencies and local authorities, biodiversity remains associated primarily with nature conservation or environmental compliance, and is not yet seen as relevant to finance, planning, agriculture, economic development, health or infrastructure work. Awareness and concern are therefore uneven, and biodiversity often appears less urgent, less measurable, or less politically visible than other priorities. Even where interest exists, biodiversity does not map neatly onto existing mandates, planning cycles, justification language or performance indicators. The task is therefore twofold: 1. Build shared understanding of how biodiversity relates to policy areas beyond nature conservation. 2. Translate biodiversity into the decision processes and justification logics that institutions already use. This section provides practical guidance on actions that policy actors can take, to help turn abstract biodiversity-related challenges in tangible actions, so biodiversity can become actionable rather than symbolic. Framing Biodiversity in the Language of Mandates Biodiversity gains practical traction when it is presented as strengthening goals that policymakers are already responsible for, rather than as an additional or competing priority. Make biodiversity relevant by showing how it enhances what other sectors already protect, manage or justify. Table 3: How to Frame Biodiversity to Align with Sectoral Mandates When speaking with… Finance & Economic Policy Units Agriculture & Rural Development Spatial / Regional Planning Climate & Adaptation Teams Trade & External Relations Education / Cultural Institutions Because… Decision processes are shaped by budget cycles and risk horizons. Biodiversity is embedded in practices of care, heritage, production and stewardship. Planning determines how landscapes are lived, experienced and valued. Biodiversity strengthens the system’s capacity to respond over time. Biodiversity underpins long-term credibility and shared benefit in partnerships. Values and identities shift through cultural engagement and collective experience. Emphasise how biodiversity supports… Stability over long-term risk and uncertainty Continuity of rural futures and viable landscapes Quality, identity and functionality of places Resilience and flexibility under changing conditions Fair, stable and legitimate cooperation Belonging, shared responsibility and meaningful learning 7 Table 4: Fitting Biodiversity into Existing Mechanisms Table 5: Fitting Biodiversity into Existing Decision Contexts Policy Mechanism Setting Impact assessments / strategic reviews Strategic planning, cooperation, partnership building Budget / programme justification text Legislative drafting, budget justification, regulatory evaluations Inter-ministerial / interservice coordination Regional development & cohesion funding Land-use / spatial planning processes Applies to Why National ministries, EC DGs, regional and local authorities Builds alignment and shared purpose. Ministries, municipalities, budget processes Matches the formal language of approval and justification. All levels of government Regions, cohesion agencies, planning authorities Local and regional planning bodies How Biodiversity Fits Effective Framing Treat biodiversity as a dependency and risk factor, not only an outcome. Opportunity, continuity, viable futures Frame biodiversity as future cost avoidance and stability in implementation. Risk reduction, stability, resilience, cost avoidance Use biodiversity to demonstrate alignment of policy goals across sectors. Link biodiversity to territorial resilience and durable investment value. Position biodiversity as part of how places function and support well-being. Inserting Biodiversity into Existing Decision Mechanisms Integration does not necessarily require new procedures. Rather, it requires positioning biodiversity where decision-making processes are already operating. Choose the Framing Based on the Decision Context Different decision settings use different evaluation logics. Framing biodiversity as an opportunity can help build alliances, while stability / resilience framing may be more effective in formal decision procedures. 8 When Encountering Resistance Capacity constraints are an important factor with high workloads, tight planning cycles and crowded policy agendas. When a colleague says “We do not have capacity for this”, it does not automatically mean: • they are opposed to biodiversity, or • they believe it is unimportant. More often, it means: • it is not yet clear where biodiversity fits in their existing responsibilities, or • they cannot yet see how it would be implemented without adding work. Repeating the case for biodiversity rarely shifts this. What does help is shifting the conversation from why to where. These questions do three things at once: • They respect the colleague’s constraints – this avoids defensiveness or perceived pressure • They locate integration within existing work – this makes biodiversity practical and feasible • They invite collaboration rather than delegation – this builds internal ownership instead of transferring responsibility. Table 6: Examples of What “Fit” Can Look Like in Practice Context Finance Ministry / Treasury Agriculture Ministry / CAP Unit Spatial Planning Department European Commission DGs Local Authority Result No new process and biodiversity becomes part of fiscal rationale Biodiversity is seen as part of sustaining agricultural futures Biodiversity becomes part of evaluating “quality of place” Biodiversity enters the decision logic before proposals are finalised Biodiversity aligns with public services and community well-being What this looks like Adding one sentence on biodiversity risk to existing budget justification templates Referencing biodiversity under “continuity of land use and rural livelihoods” in guidance notes Adding biodiversity criteria to existing checklists Adding biodiversity as a dependency and risk variable in an Impact Assessment problem definition Referencing biodiversity under “long-term maintenance and public amenity value” in park and infrastructure planning Instead of asking: “At which step in your workflow is environmental or risk information already reviewed?” “Is there a template, form, or justification note where this could be added without creating a new task?” “Which decisions in your process have longer-term consequences where resilience or continuity is already discussed?” “Would it help if we provided language, examples or text you could adapt rather than having to develop it?”. “Could you please include biodiversity in your process?” it is worth asking: 9 Table 7: Approaches and their Implication for Policy, based on Relevant Theories Approach Align biodiversity with existing mandates and priorities Fit biodiversity into current planning and decision procedures Use visible examples to make biodiversity seem shared and expected Anchor progress in routines, roles and institutional rules Sustain motivation over time Match framing to the evaluation logic of the decision setting Support confidence and reduce perceived risk Implication for Policy Practice Position biodiversity as strengthening goals already held (stability, continuity, resilience), not as a new or competing agenda. Integration is most effective when biodiversity is inserted into existing templates, coordination steps, and review stages, rather than creating parallel processes. Small internal precedents and peer examples are more influential than general awareness campaigns. Embedding biodiversity into checklists, justification notes, design standards and budgeting logic sustains action through turnover and election cycles. Use collaborative and invitational framing, not obligation-based demands. Use opportunity and shared benefit framing in collaboration settings; use stability, cost avoidance and resilience framing in formal decision reviews (e.g., funding, programme justification). Start with low-risk, feasible steps that demonstrate success and build confidence. Relevant Insight / Theory Ajzen – Theory of Planned Behaviour: People are more likely to act when the behaviour feels meaningful, socially supported, and doable for them. Michie – COM-B: Change is easier when capability, opportunity and motivation are already present. Cialdini – Social Norms: People take cues from what others in similar roles are doing. Ostrom – Institutional Governance: Stable change depends on shared rules, not individual initiative alone. Deci & Ryan – Self-Determination Theory: Motivation is maintained when people feel autonomy, competence and shared purpose. Kahneman & Tversky – Prospect Theory: How a proposal is framed shapes how it is perceived in approval processes. Bandura – Self-Efficacy: People act when they believe they can do so. The Shift in One Sentence Instead of asking for more work, help colleagues identify where biodiversity already belongs in the work they are doing. This is where progress becomes possible – even in constrained institutional settings. Why This May Work The approaches outlined here can be effective because they match how institutions and individuals actually make decisions, and how systems-level conditions can be addressed. Our research shows that people and organisations act when biodiversity is: • Relevant to goals they already hold • Feasible within existing processes and time constraints • Legitimate because others are also doing it • Supported structurally, not dependent on individual advocacy. The behavioural and decision-making theories below help explain why these patterns emerge and how they can be supported in practice. 16 Over the past decade, biodiversity has gained visibility in strategies, funding frameworks and international commitments. Yet, we see that policy ambition does not automatically translate into positive outcomes when other policies create incentives that undermine ecological and social resilience. Across cases and interviews, policymakers emphasised that: • Conservation policy alone cannot compensate for pressures created elsewhere (e.g., agricultural intensification, infrastructure expansion, market pressures). • Biodiversity outcomes depend on the everyday decisions of sectors whose core mandates are not explicitly environmental. • Transformation requires alignment, not parallel policies. This means that the future of biodiversity policy is not only a question of strengthening biodiversity regulations, but of ensuring that other policy domains do not systematically counteract ecological goals. Beyond Silos Biodiversity is not a single sector. It is a condition that underpins all sectors – food, water, climate adaptation, public health, spatial planning, cultural identity, and economic resilience. Policies therefore need to be: • Cross-cutting in design, not only in implementation. • Co-owned across ministries, not held by one department. • Based on shared responsibilities, not delegated expertise. Aligning Incentives The most substantial barriers identified by policymakers across PLANET4B were not conceptual but economic and institutional: • Subsidies and budget lines that reward practices harmful to biodiversity. • Performance indicators that privilege shortterm output over long-term resilience. • Accountability systems that evaluate individual sectors independently. To move forward: Policies must ensure that public funding does not create ecological harm, and that biodiversitypositive practices become the easiest practices to maintain. Making Biodiversity a Foundation, Not an Add-On The implication is that biodiversity policy cannot remain a parallel track. It needs to function as: • A guiding principle in agricultural, trade, finance, spatial and social policy. • A normative anchor for how value is defined. • A criterion of legitimacy in public decisionmaking. This means future policies should prioritise: Looking Forward: Designing Policies that Enable Biodiversity (and People) Priority Breaking perverse incentives Integrating biodiversity into sectoral policy logics Supporting long-term transitions and transformation Strengthening public participation and co-governance What this means in practice Review subsidy, trade, and procurement rules that unintentionally encourage biodiversity loss. Not “adding nature on top”, but shaping what resilience, productivity, fairness and public benefit mean. Multi-year, stable funding for practices that sustain ecological and social wellbeing. Valuing lived experience and local care as essential to ensuring legitimacy and sustained engagement 17 The Direction of Travel The future of biodiversity governance is not about more technical precision or stricter compliance alone. It is about aligning the values, incentives and practices that shape land, food, materials, places and public life. Biodiversity can only thrive when the systems that shape it – economic, cultural, political – are oriented toward sustaining life rather than eroding it. This requires collaboration across sectors, shared ownership of outcomes, and policies that make biodiversity the more realistic, resilient and rewarding choice. Closing Reflection The work of integrating biodiversity into policy is gradual, relational and continuous. It evolves through conversations, shared practice, and the patient adjustment of routines and responsibilities. It does not depend on perfect consensus or rapid transformation, but on steady alignment and sustained attention to how decisions shape the conditions of life over time. As more institutions recognise biodiversity as part of what makes economies, places and communities resilient, the space for meaningful action will continue to expand. Change rarely happens all at once, but it does happen – through small steps that become normal, and through relationships that become commitments. Your work in this process is both paramount and crucial. The judgment, sensitivity and forwardlooking decisions made by policymakers shape the environments in which people live, grow and belong. The path forward is not only possible – it is already underway. Each step that makes biodiversity easier to consider, easier to support, and easier to sustain contributes to a future in which policy not only protects nature but helps societies live well within it. For Further Inspiration You are warmly invited to continue exploring, learning, and contributing: PLANET4B Policy Briefs The PLANET4B Catalogue of Methods Practical, co-created tools for building belonging, agency and shared care. PLANET4B Care-full Courses with behaviour insights or for engaging communities Flexible, open-access courses offering creative, tested methods to support inclusive biodiversity action across policy processes. PLANET4B Care-full Resources A searchable directory of engagement methods and transformative change stories – real examples of communities and movements reshaping their relationships with biodiversity. Sister projects and networks working on transformation, care, values, and biodiversity: BioAgora | BioNext | BIOTRAILS | BioTraCes | COEVOLVERS | DAISY | GoDigiBios | NATURESCAPES | PRO-COAST | TRANS-Lighthouses | TRANSPATH 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 project receives funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Partnership based on diversity and strong collaboration. Partners Funders PLANET4B (2025) Making Change in Policy - Tools and Strategies for Policymakers to Make Biodiversity a Shared Priority. PLANET4B Project-101082212. www.care-full-courses.com 44 Annex C. Making Change at Work: Tools and Strategies for Businesses to Make Biodiversity Matter BUSINESS Making Change at Work Tools and Strategies for Businesses to Make Biodiversity Matter Foreword Working on sustainability from inside a company can feel both energising and exhausting. There are moments of progress – a conversation shifts, a colleague gets curious, a pilot takes off – and there are moments where everything seems to pause, stall, or slip back into business-as-usual. This guide is written for those doing this work from the inside – sustainability and ESG leads, impact strategists, environmental managers, and others – who are trying to move biodiversity from “something that is often not yet part of the everyday conversation” to “something we can recognise, value and begin working for together”. We see different starting points across organisations about how biodiversity is considered. In some companies, biodiversity is emerging as the next step after climate – there is momentum, but it needs direction and shared meaning. In others, there is support – people care, but action is limited. In some, biodiversity sits mainly in reports and frameworks – understood as compliance rather than culture. And in many, biodiversity has no starting point at all – there is simply no shared language for it yet. All of these starting positions are valid and workable, places from which meaningful change can grow. This guide does not offer a new reporting framework, or a compliance checklist. Instead, it offers something more practical – a set of tools to help you move from awareness to care, from care to visible action and long-term anchoring. If you are looking for ways to make biodiversity real, shared, and part of your organisational identity, you are already a changemaker, and this guide is designed for you. These guidelines draw on insights from the international research project – PLANET4B – where research institutions and businesses worked together to understand how biodiversity can be prioritised in decision-making. Here, we share the key learnings, approaches, and practical tools to help you make biodiversity matter even more in your organisation. The PLANET4B Coordination Team Table of Contents Why Biodiversity Matters in Business 4 How to Forge Change in Business – 4 the Five Pathways of Change Where to Start: Practical Entry Points Inside Organisations 6 Tools for Making Biodiversity Actionable in Companies 7 Sustaining Yourself as a Change-Maker 10 Change Grows Through What We Do Together 12 For Further Inspiration 12 4 Why Biodiversity Matters in Business How to Forge Change in Business – the Five Pathways of Change Biodiversity is the living fabric that supports economies, supply chains and daily life. It provides raw materials, water and soil systems, climate regulation, pollination, cultural identity and well-being – often the very foundations businesses depend on. Yet in many organisations, biodiversity is not yet visible in everyday decisions. As a term, it has not necessarily been discussed, connected to processes or to the work people do. In our work with businesses1, we found that biodiversity is often described: • As something to manage or avoid risk • As part of sustainability and ESG commitments • As a source of innovation and new business models • As something connected to purpose, place and identity. In our work with businesses, we found that meaningful biodiversity action rarely starts with strategies, targets or detailed plans. Instead, it begins in smaller ways – through moments of experience, visibility and reinforcement. These are not stages to move through, rather conditions that reinforce each other to make change possible. Why these Pathways Matter These pathways align with how people in organisations learn, decide and act. They also address the cognitive patterns that often limit biodiversity action: 1. Permission counters status quo bias 2. People who care counter diffusion of responsibility 3. Experiential connection counters abstraction and distance 4. Visible wins counter overconfidence and invisibility 5. Anchoring counters short-termism and fallback to old habits. Transformation becomes possible not by “raising awareness”, but by creating the conditions in which new practices feel natural, supported and meaningful. These framings are all valid. However, when biodiversity is spoken about mainly in terms of risk and reporting, it tends to feel important but distant – something to account for, rather than something to care about or act upon. To make biodiversity actionable, it needs to become: • Relevant to the work people already do • Visible in places, materials and decisions • Connected to meaning, identity or shared purpose. When this happens, biodiversity shifts from abstract concept to shared organisational practice. 1. PLANET4B (2023) Report on biodiveristy and related concept perceptions. https://planet4b.eu/project-documents/report-on-biodiversity-and-related-concepts-perceptions 5 How Sustainability Leads can use these Pathways Think of these pathways as levers rather than tasks. You do not need to activate all of them at once. Start where there is already openness or movement. Once you have identified your entry points, there are a number of methods that can be used to initiate action. We introduce ways to identify entry points and find suitable methods in the next section. Table 1: The Five Pathways Table 2: Levers and methods to trigger change Pathway 1. Permission & Framing 2. People Who Care 3. Experiential Connection 4. Visible Wins & Stories 5. Anchoring in Systems Why it Matters Lean into… Without permission, action stays informal or invisible. Experiential Connection Change spreads through relationships, not job titles. Visible Wins & Stories Experience shifts motivation more than information. Anchoring in Systems Permission & People Who Care Visibility turns effort into identity and pride. This makes change durable, so it continues even when people shift roles. What it Means If you currently have… Leadership signals that biodiversity is legitimate to consider and work on. Leadership openness, but low engagement Motivated individuals hold the thread and model what is possible. Enthusiastic individuals, but little visibility Biodiversity becomes real through place, memory, culture, or direct encounter. Pilot projects, but no wider adoption No starting point at all Small actions become seen, shared, recognised and talked about. Processes, workflows, procurement and routines adapt to support the new practice. How it is in Practice Use methods like… “It’s okay to spend time on this.” Corporate Volunteering, Priming, Storytelling “I see others like me doing this.” Internal Messaging, Gamification, Social Modelling “I felt something – this matters.” COM-B, Habit Stacking, CBSM, Goal-Setting Foot-in-the-Door, But-You-AreFree, Values Framing “We are a company where this happens.” “This is just how we work now.” 6 Where to Start: Practical Entry Points Inside Organisations Every organisation is different. Structures, priorities, language, timelines and cultures vary. But across contexts, there are recurring places where biodiversity work can begin without needing to convince everyone or change everything at once. These are entry points – small but strategic spaces where new practices can take hold. How to Identify Your Entry Points A simple way to begin is to ask: • Where is there already openness or curiosity? • Who is already informally interested or supportive? • Which teams talk about purpose, well-being, supply chains, nature or place? • Where does biodiversity show up physically – in products, landscapes, materials, or sourcing? You do not need to map the whole organisation. You only need to find one or two openings where work can start without forcing it. Work with the parts of the organisation where traction is possible, so that others can join when they are ready. Once You Find an Entry Point Start with something small, relational and doable, such as: • Bringing biodiversity into an existing meeting conversation • Suggesting a tiny pilot (not a programme) • Inviting 2–3 interested colleagues to explore something together • Asking a supplier or partner a curiosity-driven question • Proposing a trial, not a commitment. Small beginnings are not just practical – they are strategically powerful: • They reduce perceived risk • They avoid triggering organisational defensiveness • They create early wins that generate momentum. Avoid steps that ask for significant staff time or funding, and do not frame biodiversity as an additional task or obligation. These can immediately create pushback. 1. Leadership Signals Why it Works: A small visible indication that biodiversity matters here creates legitimacy to act. What it Looks Like in Practice: A short statement of support, a slide in a company meeting, space given in planning conversations, including biodiversity in a team priority list. 2. Existing Sustainability Work Why it Works: Biodiversity can build naturally on climate, circularity or wellbeing programmes. What it Looks Like in Practice: Adding biodiversity thinking to existing projects, supplier work, community engagement, innovation labs. 3. Places, Materials and Products Why it Works: Biodiversity becomes tangible through what people see, touch, produce or manage. What it Looks Like in Practice: Sourcing discussions, packaging decisions, ingredients, land use, office or site landscaping. 4. Everyday Culture & Shared Moments Why it Works: Small rituals and shared experiences shape identity. What it Looks Like in Practice: Team volunteering days, storytelling moments, internal challenges, small visible wins. PLANET4B (2025) Making Change at Work - Tools and Strategies for Businesses to Make Biodiversity Matter. PLANET4B Project-101082212. www.care-full-courses.com 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 project receives funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Partnership based on diversity and strong collaboration. Partners Funders