Learning communities and sectoral advisory boards for place-based and sector-based case studies. Report No D3.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 — PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B report on LEARNING COMMUNITIES AND SECTORAL ADVISORY BOARDS FOR PLACE-BASED AND SECTOR-BASED CASE STUDIES 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 D3.1 Deliverable title Learning communities and sectoral advisory boards for place-based and sector-based case studies Task leader Radboud University (RU) Corresponding author Vinícius Mendes Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description The deliverable includes a report on the establishment of five intensive place-based and six extensive sector-based cases including main stakeholders participating and an analysis of key systems and their leverage points for intervention to unlock transformation. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 09/11/2023 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); David Barton (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); 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 Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) 0.2 Draft 17/11/2023 Reviewer: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU) 0.3 Draft 27/11/2023 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); David Barton (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) 0.4 Draft 27/11/2023 Reviewer: Alex Franklin (CU) 0.5 Draft 28/11/2023 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); David Barton (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie K. Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Vegard Gundersen (NINA); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) 1.0 Final 30/11/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) v Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Torsten Wähler (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi Recommended citation Mendes, V., Kelemen, E., Inoue, C. Y. A., Aas-Hanssen, A. E., Barton, D., Bolsø, R., Bonetti, M., Bredin, Y. K., Brown, G., Brunori, G., Bykova, M., Chudy, R. P., Czett, K., Figari, H., Franklin, A., Gronda, R., Gundersen, V., Home, R., Hval, J., Karner, S., Lampredi, G., Lipka, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Motschunig, A., Navarro Gambín, P., Pataki, G., Podlaszewska, A., Sabir, G., Saydaliev, Z., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Tennhardt, L., Thaler, A., Vergamini, D., & Villa, M. (2023). Learning communities and sectoral advisory boards for place-based and sector-based case studies. Report No D3.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.15474335 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 all participants of the Learning Communities and Stakeholder Boards for their time and willingness to share information, experiences and opinions with their respective case studies during interviews and workshops to co-define cases’ Learning Objectives. Additionally, the leaders of Task 3.1 and WP3 would like to thank all case studies in PLANET4B for their timely replies to our requests as well as for their material contributions, participation in workshops, conversations, email exchanges and textual contributions that led to this report. 1 List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CLD Causal Loop Diagram CSDDD Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC. ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group EUDR European Union Deforestation Regulation FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services KLP Kommunal Landspensjonskasse Gjensidig Forsikringsselskap (KLP Pension Fund) KPI Key Performance Indicator LC Learning Community LO Learning Objectives MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF 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 SB Stakeholder Board SD System Dynamics SH Stakeholder TNFD Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa Work Package WP 2 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... v List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... 1 Executive summary ................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 2 Methodological dimensions ................................................................................... 4 2.1 Meetings and materials: the trajectory for producing, exchanging, and documenting information in Task 3.1 ............................................................................... 5 2.2 Data curation and analysis ........................................................................................ 12 3 Building learning communities and stakeholder boards .................................. 12 3.1 Stakeholder mapping ................................................................................................. 13 3.2 The process of selecting and inviting LCs and SBs members .............................. 13 4 The composition of LCs and SBs, preliminary systems, leverage points, and co-defined learning objectives ............................................................................... 29 4.1 Place-based case – Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) .................... 30 4.2 Place-based case – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DC/CU) ...................................................................................... 31 4.3 Place-based case – Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) ..................................... 32 4.4 Place-based case – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) ............ 34 4.5 Place-based case – Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) ........................................................................................................................................... 36 4.6 Sectoral case – “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) .... 38 4.7 Sectoral case – Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) ................. 39 4.8 Sectoral case – Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) ... 40 4.9 Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) .................................. 43 4.10 Sectoral case – Trade & GVCs of soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) ........................................................................................................................................... 45 4.11 Sectoral case – Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) . 49 5 Discussing the lessons learnt, the intersectionality dimensions and outreach of LCs and SBs ......................................................................................................... 50 5.1 Comments and final reflections on intersectionality and the outreach of the LCs and SBs ............................................................................................................................. 56 6 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 66 References ................................................................................................................ 69 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 69 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 69 3 Executive summary • Intensive cases established Learning Communities (LC) and extensive cases set up Stakeholder Boards (SB) to jointly define learning objectives. • In total, 75 members have been recruited to compose LCs and SBs. • Participants show diversity in terms of intersectionality, especially gender, age, ethnic groups, and ablism. • Participants represent all dimensions of the quintuple helix model, although individual LCs/SBs are sometimes skewed towards specific actors. • Specific learning objectives are being co-defined in all cases through a tailormade participatory process. 1 Introduction The challenge of fostering transdisciplinarity in environmental science (Harris and Lyon, 2013), and in particular in biodiversity science, research and policy (Deutsch et al., 2023), has been documented as crucial to tackle global biodiversity loss while improving socio-environmental justice and equity, for humans and non-humans. Transdisciplinarity means building trust across professional cultures (Harris and Lyon, 2013), crossing boundaries between academia and society (business, government, civil society organisations, etc.) (Simon and Schiemer, 2015), enhancing sciencepolicy interfaces by means of research that matters within and beyond university/research institutions’ walls (Neßhöver et al., 2013). In PLANET4B, our case studies include place-based and sectoral investigations reaching social-ecological dimensions (Mehring et al., 2017), thus aiming to influence academic, social and policy decision-making towards biodiversity prioritisation and action. In other words, PLANET4B was designed in a research configuration that requires a transdisciplinary approach. However, there is no single pre-defined approach for how to conduct transdisciplinary biodiversity research. Within PLANET4B Task 3.1 has helped our consortium to address the challenge of transdisciplinarity by supporting our 11 case studies during the process of establishing learning communities (LCs) for five place-based cases, and stakeholder boards (SBs) for six sectoral cases. Each place-based (intensive) case was responsible for building its own LC, whilst each sectoral (extensive) case has put together its own SB.1 In all remaining stages of PLANET4B, LCs and SBs will collaborate closely with cases during their research, paying attention to the particularities of local communities, sectoral stakeholders, policy actors, business decision-makers, intersectionality dimensions, and vulnerable social groups in varied geographies and economic sectors. The composition of LCs and SBs attends to two simultaneous criteria: • The quintuple-helix approach (including actors from business, government, environment, academia and third sector/civil society) • Intersectionality: LCs and SBs include members with varied social identities and backgrounds with regard to: gender, religion, ethnicity, race, age, culture, disability, and others. 1 It is important to notice that in PLANET4B and in this report we use place-based cases and intensive cases interchangeably. Likewise, extensive cases and sectoral cases are also used interchangeably. 4 This deliverable (D3.1) aims to document the process of establishing LCs for the five intensive place-based cases, and SBs for the six extensive sectoral cases. Chiefly it includes descriptions of the main stakeholders participating in these boards, as well as the learning objectives for each of the 11 case studies, co-defined with their respective LCs and SBs. More specifically, this report includes: 1) information on the process of setting up LCs and SBs; 2) information on the composition of the LCs and SBs, and to what extent the quintuple-helix and intersectionality principles were met; 3) the learning objectives of each of the 11 case studies; and 4) reflections from the cases on lessons learned until the present moment of the project. The D3.1 has six parts, including this introduction. Part 2 presents our methodological approach in task 3.1, including the work process for supporting and mentoring cases, facilitating individual and cross-cases meetings, collecting, archiving and analysing information. Part 3 describes the specific processes that fostered the selection and initial approach with LCs and SBs, namely: stakeholder mapping and how the quintuple-helix and intersectionality criteria were (or were not) met. Part 4 presents the main results of the activities conducted in task 3.1, i.e. the composition of LCs, and SBs; the co-defined learning objectives for each case study. Part 5 presents some reflections on the learning outcomes during the Task 3.1 activities. Finally, Part 6 contains the conclusion and next steps, as well as an outlook of the following activities in WP3. 2 Methodological dimensions This part contains information on the methods applied by the leader of Task 3.1 (V.M. – first author of this deliverable) and the leader of WP3 (E.K. – second author of this deliverable) to steer cases in the period M1–M12 of PLANET4B, in order to help cases conduct a stakeholder mapping exercise, select the members of their LCs and SBs, as well as co-define Learning Objectives (LOs) together with the members of the LCs/SBs. The Task and WP leaders guided and supported the cases to carry out their own engagement process, coordinated exchange and co-learning between the cases, and carried out the analysis of the reports prepared by the cases. At the same time, the Task and WP leaders themselves were coordinating their specific cases (international trade and awareness raising in public education, respectively), so they themselves could gain insider experience of which approach works and how. This two-way engagement helped the Task and WP leaders to follow a trust-based, inclusive (mentoring-type) leadership. However, the double role of the Task and the WP leaders also raises the risk that some results of the analysis are skewed towards their own experiences. To avoid this bias, all those sections of the deliverable where progress or reflection on individual cases are presented, build exclusively on the summary reports provided by the cases and use their own wording (i.e. the Task and WP leaders let the cases speak for themselves). Furthermore, to make clear the positionality of all authors of this deliverable, the text always refers to “the Task and WP leader” when it explains activities carried out or conclusions drawn by the two first authors, and uses the pronoun “We” when activities, thoughts, and reflection of individual cases are shared. 11 WP3, during PLANET4B Consortium Meeting) Location: Nijmegen, Netherlands intensive and extensive case + PLANET4B consortium representatives (n=37) their LCs and SBs, and co-defining Learning Objectives. • Fishbowl session: Two separate fishbowl discussions organised for extensive and intensive cases, where each case had to respond to a general question on how intersectionality was covered in their case. Afterwards anyone from the audience could take a seat in the inner circle and ask a question or share a comment with the case leaders who sat in the inner circle. As an outcome, a lively facilitated discussion emerged between the cases that gave deeper insights into internal processes of the cases. In addition to the meetings for establishing collective principles, planning the roadmaps of activities, and the series of cross-cases meetings, we gathered together in the second Consortium Meeting of PLANET4B on October 25th-27th, 2023 in Nijmegen, the Netherlands, where WP3/Task 3.1 leaders organised two activities: a Bingo and a Fishbowl session. In the Bingo session, everyone in the room received a sheet of paper containing six questions, each question related to the cases (questions related to curiosities or specific information about the cases) and offered four optional answers. Instead of answering the questions by themselves, participants had to ask another person for each question (so people were asked to stand up, walk around, interact with others). The person addressed then had to provide what they thought was the correct answer, or guess, or simply state that they did not know the answer. The game was on until there was one person who received responses to all the questions and shouted Bingo! There were two winners: the quickest person and the person(s) with the largest number of good answers. In the Fishbowl session, we had one hour on Thursday, October 26th, 2023, in the morning, where WP3/Task 3.1 leaders organised two 30-min fishbowl discussions. One such session targeted extensive cases, and another one aimed at understanding better the perceptions of intensive cases. Each fishbowl session was structured around a question that steered these discussions. The question tackled the intersectionality dimensions in these cases. Figure 5 presents intensive cases during the fishbowl session. 12 Figure 5. Intensive cases during fishbowl session of the Consortium Meeting of PLANET4B, October 26th, 2023, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Source: project repository of pictures. 2.2 Data curation and analysis During all activities organised by WP3/Task 3.1 mentioned in the previous sections of this report, we made sure to document the content of the discussions via minutes, video-recording of online meetings, pictures, and notes taken by WP3/Task 3.1 leaders. For the analysis of these inputs, we – WP3 and Task 3.1 leaders – had several internal meetings and exchanges of emails to collectively analyse the progress of the cases through qualitative incursions of these various materials. A milestone document introducing the cases and explaining the processes carried out in the cases in the first nine months of the project was prepared in July 2023, concluding with some challenges and potential next steps (Kelemen et al. 2023). Main findings of the milestone document served as an additional input for this deliverable. 3 Building learning communities and stakeholder boards This section documents the processes for supporting cases to mobilise and engage with LCs and SBs. This section of the report also describes the specific processes that fostered the selection and initial approach with LCs and SBs, namely: stakeholder mapping and how the quintuple-helix and intersectionality criteria were met. 13 3.1 Stakeholder mapping Previously to inviting LC and SB members, cases were asked to conduct a stakeholder mapping. We asked cases to consider the elements of the quintuple-helix framework during the identification of their main stakeholders, i.e. stakeholders and/or community members needed to represent: (1) education and research, (2) the economic system, (3) the natural environment, (4) media-based and culture-based public (also ‘civil society’), (5) and the political system. Although we shared some guidelines on stakeholder mapping, cases were free to perform this mapping in the way that best suited their knowledge, previous experiences, and capacity. No data sharing on the stakeholder maps was mandatory, except updating case study factsheets with accurate information on the main stakeholder groups identified. Based on the stakeholder mapping, cases could invite relevant people for interviews and to become members of their LCs and/or SBs. The next section documents this stage in detail. 3.2 The process of selecting and inviting LCs and SBs members We asked cases to send us, in written format, how they have approached and contacted their stakeholders, how they have selected the invited participants to constitute their LCs and SBs, and how they have organised their first workshop (or workshops) with members of their LCs and SBs in order to introduce their cases, and to co-design Learning Objectives (LOs). Additionally, we asked cases to share with us photo documentation of their workshops. Cases were asked to fill a table in their respective factsheet (in the SharePoint) with dates of the events and the number of participants included (interviews, surveys, workshops etc.). Intensive case – OOF/NINA To get a feeling for the field of outdoor recreation and nature experiences available to children with disabilities, OOF and NINA started broadly by searching for activities in nature and organisations that offer outdoor activities directed to children with disabilities. To get a feeling for how this is practiced, we specifically searched for activities organised in the summer of 2023, which we could join through participant observation. Participant observation allow researchers to explore and test hypotheses about human behaviour in different situations. Studying different situations by participation allows us to establish a relationship between the observed behaviour and the specific condition. Participant observation thus allow us to look for both general patterns and specific situations that provide good nature experiences and relevant nature contact for children and youth with disabilities. Participant observation during Brain Camp Yng organised October 8th, 2023, by the Sunnaas Foundation2 for 14 children (age 6–16) with acquired brain injury led to contact with the Sunnaas Foundation Peer Mentorship Program. The Sunnaas Foundation Peer Mentorship Program is a one-year leadership development program for people with disabilities. The people that join this program have themselves lived through a spinal cord-, or brain injury and have had to learn to live with an acquired disability. Typically, these people have also participated in previous outdoor recreational camps organised by the Sunnaas Foundation. Because peer mentors are 2 Source: https://www.sunnaasstiftelsen.no/ 14 central to the Sunnaas Foundation model for active rehabilitation and play the main role in all their camps and activities, the people that join the Peer Mentoring Program also know how empowering it can be to have a peer mentor, to learn to master new skills, to challenge oneself and feel the freedom of being in nature. Contact with the Sunnaas Foundation Peer Mentoring Program thus directed our thoughts to building a LC around the experiences of peer mentors. Our approach to building a LC was typically “bottom up”. In considering the peer mentors as experts on their own lives we have drawn inspiration from institutional ethnography. More an approach than a specific method, institutional ethnography aims to produce knowledge for people instead of about them. In the first step, a social topic, issue, or challenge is examined through the lens of one or several stakeholders, using accounts of their everyday experiences to identify a “problematic”. Through an iterative process these experiences are then used to define further topics to explore and actors to engage with. Placing the peer mentors’ everyday realities at the centre of the LC process corresponds well to how personal experiences, in institutional ethnography, represent a “gaze on the macro structure from the micro level”. During a follow-up meeting, after the Brain Camp Yng, with the Sunnaas Foundation Manager and the coordinator of their Peer Mentorship Program OOF and NINA presented the idea of using elements of Institutional ethnography to build a LC with/around peer mentors as experts. We asked the Sunnaas Foundation Manager and the coordinator of their Peer Mentoring Program for views and feedback on our suggested approach and help to establish a network of peer mentors. Thus, establishing a collaboration with the Sunnaas Foundation helped us contact three peer mentors as experts into our LC. Therefore, this case LC is still in the processes of being built (stage of inviting additional members). Intensive case – DC/CU As Dadima’s CIC (DC) has been organising walks for just over three years, our stakeholders (potential LC) were familiar to us. We created a poster / information sheet (see Fig 6) and having considered our audience, selected individuals based on key selection criteria (wheel of privilege/age/willingness to participate etc.). We then contacted those individuals via email and text follow-ups, with the information. We decided beforehand to keep our LC size to around 10 participants to ensure that we could manage future meetings, and give our LC the best opportunity to engage, share and reflect deeply. Our first meeting was a TEAMs introduction meeting on November 16th, 2023. The meeting was aimed at welcoming the LC to the facilitators and to one another, introducing more fully PLANET4B, outlining roles and the key aims and objectives of the study and workshops, and discussing dates for future meetings during 2024. Opening questions raised during the meeting, as a way helping all participants to feel comfortable within the group and about the task of being a LC member, included: How do you understand the word ‘biodiversity’ right now? Use your own words/thoughts to explain, without any pressure to use technical/scientific jargon. LC members were also encouraged to share their first impressions of working together to address key issues relating to Black, Asian and minority ethnic access to the countryside. Seven LC members attended the meeting; three members sent their apologies. 15 Figure 6. Information sheet distributed to DC’s stakeholders. Intensive case – CGE/MLU At CGE, together with MLU, we created an open call for the selection of participants for our LC, which we posted on our website and social media channels (Instagram and Facebook).3 The idea was to announce the call for a wider audience, to people who we might reach out. The activities within the PLANET4B LC have been carefully designed to engage and empower our participants, fostering a deeper understanding of biodiversity, and enable them to influence decision-making. Figures 7 and 8 provide a more detailed visual description of these activities. 3 Link to the Open Call to Join PLANET4B Learning Community: https://www.cge-erfurt.org/2023/07/31/planet4b-join-our-learning-community-of-urban-youth/ 16 Figure 7. Expedition to Steigerwald Local Forest, Germany, including case partners and their LC, on September 1st-2nd, 2023. Source: case study members. Figure 8. Expedition to Steigerwald Local Forest, Germany, including case partners and their LC, on September 1st-2nd, 2023. Source: case study members. Next, we provide more details about the activities with our LC as illustrated in Figures 7 and 8. Big Expedition to Hohenfelden Camping Site | September 1st-2nd, 2023 The expedition to the Hohenfelden camping site was a larger-scale adventure designed to encourage teamwork, foster a sense of community, and deepen our understanding of nature. This one-day trip allowed participants to immerse themselves 17 in a natural environment, facilitating discussions and activities related to the preservation of biodiversity. It also promoted experiential learning, enabling participants to connect with nature and learn about its significance for sustainable living. Tasks such as collection of wood for cooking the meals, food preparations, setting up of tents for the night and sleeping under the open sky, stimulated the learning process. A message in the WhatsApp group which kickstarted our interactions as a big Learning Community (LC): “We are happy to welcome you to the ! PLANET4B Learning Community and the first meeting in the beautiful Thuringian nature ", next to the Hohenfelden lake #. $ Our upcoming trip is an expedition to explore the forest area, human-nature interaction and role of youth in decisionmaking for protecting our planet’s biodiversity. % From the 1st until the 2nd of September, in this overnight stay, we look forward to have joyful moments ✨ with you in the nature, share food and thoughts, and reflect on our presence on Earth.” Figure 9. Expedition to Steigerwald Local Forest, Germany, including case partners and their LC, on September 1st-2nd, 2023. Source: case study members. 18 Figure 10. Expedition to Steigerwald Local Forest, Germany, including case partners and their LC, on September 1st-2nd, 2023. Source: case study members. The journey resulted in a unique experience as, on the night of the expedition, the LC tested the biodiversity-Food-Governance game for the first time (see Figure 10). This role-play table-top game developed based on experimental games from behavioural economics and insights from strategy-based scenario games enabled participants to step into the shoes of buyers, sellers, government officials, and migrant communities, simulating decision-making regarding agricultural land usage. The outcomes were nothing short of stunning, challenging participants to think critically about their actions and the implications of their decisions on the environment. Post-game reflections provided valuable insights into the decision-making strategies of young people concerning biodiversity and underscored the potential for innovative and engaging methods to empower them in the realm of nature conservation. Lego Workshop on Designing Inclusive Spaces for Biodiversity in Urban Settings (within Hinterhof Boogie Event, Kultur Flaniert Festival) | October 16th, 2023 The Lego workshop (see Figure 11) provided a creative and interactive platform for participants to brainstorm and design inclusive spaces that promote biodiversity in urban areas. Through hands-on building and collaborative problem-solving, participants explored innovative solutions for making cities more ecologically friendly. This activity not only encouraged creative thinking but also highlighted the importance of incorporating biodiversity-friendly designs in urban planning. Figures 11 to 13 document the workshop. 19 Figure 11. The Lego workshop developed to steer the interaction among case study members and the case’s LC. Source: case study members. 20 Figure 12. The Lego workshop developed to steer the interaction among case study members and the case’s LC. Source: case study members. 27 their work and decided that they would fit the spirit of the project perfectly. The LC for the case has a total of 5 members, all females. Extensive case – Education ESSRG The present case study is based on a participatory action research project in a Hungarian school garden, conducted between 2019 and 2022 within InSPIRES (Ingenious Science Shops for Participatory Innovation, Research and Equity in Science), during which we immersed ourselves in the context of environmental education in Hungary as well as met some renowned experts on the subject. This served as a good starting point for finding the right stakeholders and was complemented by desk research and interviewing that followed a snowball method. Sixteen identified experts were interviewed for about one hour, either in-person or online. On the one hand, we asked them about the state of environmental education in Hungary and best practices to teach biodiversity, and on the other hand, we asked for suggestions to refine our research direction and for further experts on the subject. We complemented this by observing two school garden classes, where we also talked to teachers and students. We then assembled a board of experts we considered to be the best on the subject, while paying particular attention to ensuring that diverse voices and perspectives were represented among the members. We ended up inviting 13 experts to the board, of which 10 responded positively and seven were able to attend the first meeting. In all cases, we contacted them by email and used Doodle to try to find a time that suited most of them. As it was more convenient for most stakeholders, the two-hour workshop was finally held online on 5 October 2023. In order to synergise the interaction as much as possible, after the introduction and presentation of our preliminary results along with our possible research directions, we led the discussion on Miro board in an interactive format (see Figure 17). Extensive case – Agriculture & Migration FiBL This case study works on diverse topics that come together at the "AgricultureMigration Nexus" and on different levels, from the regional European level to the farmlevel. The initial scoping phase allowed us to get a Europe-wide overview and define the problem(s) within this nexus and their relation to biodiversity conservation. Thus, we have approached several high-level experts (ILO, JRC, DG-Agri, university professors) via email and invited them to participate in an expert interview. We selected these experts based on the topics they work on (either migration, agronomy, or biodiversity). Our first workshop with the SB was thus carried out as six individual expert interviews with these potential SB members. This means that in our case, so far, we have adopted a strategy of working individually with SB members. We opted for this approach as we expected a higher willingness to contribute to and support the case study after having established a connection to these experts during the interviews. All experts interviewed so far were willing to remain in the loop and discuss results and further developments of the case in future. This approach was also chosen to ensure sufficient time for very thorough input from all experts and to discuss in detail the individual experts' recommendations to the case study. This would have been much more difficult in a group setting. 28 Based on the inputs from these meetings and interviews with SB members, we plan to develop a first generic causal loop diagram for the European context, which will then be verified in different study sites across the continent. After this, we plan to organise an online workshop in which we discuss and confirm our findings with the initial experts again (we call this confirmation phase). Extensive case – Trade RU In our research process to map and invite members to compose our SB, we initially selected members of our own academic network both in Brazil and in the Netherlands. We approached them initially by formal invitations after having conducted research interviews with most of these SB members. For those who agreed to compose our SB, official invitation emails were sent. Other members of our SB are external and were approached via LinkedIn. Participants were selected based on the five-helix framework, which covers: (1) education and research system, (2) economic system, (3) natural environment, (4) media-based and culture-based public (also 'civil society'), (5) and the political system. Currently, only the economic system/business sector is not represented in our SB. We also followed the intersectionality criteria. In total, from our seven SB members, the majority (four members) are women, two of them from the Global South (Brazil), and two from the global North (Netherlands and Portugal). As for the co-definition of our LOs, we have organised one online workshop with duration of one hour, on October 3rd, 2023, with some of the members of our SB. The structure of the workshop consisted of welcoming and introduction (10 min), brief presentation of the project and case (10 min), discussion on suggestions, directions from the SB members (35 min), wrap up (5 min). Five questions animated the discussion: 1) What aspects of this research do you believe would be most worth focusing on, and why? 2) What are the main learning objectives and results that we can achieve with this case study? (Science-Policy-Social impact in EU funded projects); 3) What policies, regulations and actors in the Netherlands and Brazil should we study in more detail? 4) How to work with the dimension of intersectionality in this case study? 5) Interesting methodologies or approaches for this case study? Figures 18 and 19 document the first workshop with part of our SB members. In essence, this meeting was an important opportunity for case leaders to exchange ideas and research information with the SB. Moreover, the meeting provided the space for SBs members to meet each other, and better understand our co-creative process in the case study. Extensive case – Sustainable Finance NINA Our task in the PLANET4B project intends to assess the evidence on to what extent investor cognitive biases play a role in the context of Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) uncertainty. To our knowledge, no comprehensive review of the grey and scientific literature has been done regarding cognitive biases that influence financial actors' use of ESG metrics in investment decisions and how these biases may harm or benefit biodiversity at the local level and portfolio allocation. To address the above questions, NINA has carefully selected a group of professionals from multistakeholder initiatives and the financial sector to participate in the Stakeholder Board. 29 In the first step of setting up the Stakeholder Board (SB), we assessed the specific objectives of the meetings and the skills and knowledge needed to achieve those goals. Then, we identified the key stakeholders relevant to our task who have interest in the outcomes of our study. In this step, we needed to ensure diverse and inclusive representation in the SB to capture a wide range of perspectives (we considered industry background and stakeholder type). After we prepared a clear list of stakeholders, we determined how best to reach out to them. To inform SB members about the objectives of our study and upcoming workshops, we prepared a two-pager information leaflet where we clearly stated the study background, aims and the role of SB. We stressed that participating in the Stakeholder Board of this research initiative will offer SB members a unique opportunity to shape the project’s direction and access valuable research insights. We also indicated that when the results of our research study are published, recognition for each SB member will be given. Then, we crafted personalised and concise messages that articulated the purpose of the engagement, the benefits of their involvement, and a clear call to action. We utilised various communication channels such as email, calls, or in-person meetings, depending on what suits each stakeholder's preferences (email contact and online calls were the dominant form of contact). The first SB meeting took place on November 1st, 2023, between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. (CET) and was organised via virtual attendance (TEAMS software). In total, the SB for this case has 6 members, 3 females and 3 males. 4 The composition of LCs and SBs, preliminary systems, leverage points, and co-defined learning objectives In this section, we document how cases reflected upon the composition of their LCs and SBs. This analysis can be used by other tasks and WPs in PLANET4B in order to assess the preliminary systems and leverage points with which cases will interact. In this part we also present all the co-defined LOs for each case. We asked cases to fill a template documenting in detail the information about their LC/SB, and explaining the co-defined Learning Objectives (LOs), which in most cases were discussed during a first workshop with their LC/SB. Below, we document the answers from all the cases, starting with the intensive case Nature recreation in Oslo. Throughout the section, we opted to “give voice” to the cases, meaning that often the text is a narrative in the first person of the plural (“we”), written by case researchers and only slightly edited by the two first authors of this report. This indicates that what is written in the remaining of this section 4 (subsections 4.1 until 4.11) represents strictu sensu the bottom-up views from case study members, collaboratively built with their respective LCs and SBs, and written by case researchers themselves. 30 4.1 Place-based case – Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) The composition of the LC The core of our LC is composed by three peer mentors who are experts on making nature experiences inclusive of children and young people with disabilities. We decided to invite disabled people who are trained, practicing peer mentors with experience of making nature experiences inclusive of children and young adults with acquired disabilities. Both peer mentors and the children and young people that they work with have acquired their disabilities through spinal cord or brain injuries after birth. These disabilities may manifest themselves in many ways. The reason we chose to invite peer mentors as experts to our LC is because they constitute a functional rolemodel system for children with disabilities. The peer mentors have everyday knowledge and first-hand experiences of what nature experiences mean to, and can be, for people with disabilities. They also know what it takes to make such nature experiences inclusive of and accessible to children and young adults with disabilities. The peer mentors thus bring key knowledge into our LC where they are the experts that we may learn from and with. Our LC is inclusive of age and disabilities. So far, we have not succeeded in recruiting women or non-white Norwegians, but this is work in progress. We have however, made an active choice not to follow the quintuple helix approach to invite actors from different sectors such as education, industry, etc. Instead, we let ourselves be inspired by Institutional Ethnography to invite different actors, potentially from other sectors, through the process of our work and based on the needs and wishes of the experts in our LC. We thus start “narrow” or “focused” but think broad. As a result of this approach, we are currently expanding our LC to include parents of children with disabilities. The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case In our first meeting with the LC, we spoke about the challenges, barriers, and enablers of good nature experiences for children and young people with disabilities. Based on concrete examples and lived experiences we identified two alternative objectives. • The first alternative objective could be to outscale the Sunnaas Foundation mentoring program to settings outside of the Sunnaas Foundation. This could for example be a service offered to a wider range of parents of, and youth and children with disabilities. It could thus be an opportunity for them to meet others that have been through or are in similar situations to exchange experiences or receive support and help. • The second alternative objective builds on an identified need for aggregating and making information about recreational activities and opportunities for good nature experiences accessible to parents of, and youth and children with disabilities. This could be set up as a portal on the municipality webpages. The portal could feature recreational activities, information about opportunities for going into nature (both nearby and further away), and available support (e.g. available resources, who to ask for help, or equipment that you may borrow). The Sunnaas Foundation has some experience of working with a municipality to outscale their mentoring program and help people that are arriving home after a disabling injury to adapt to their new situation. 31 As a next step in co-developing these objectives further we will therefore ask key people within the Sunnaas Foundation to share their experiences from working with a municipality and any tips that they may have. We will also ask two parents to join our LC to get their perspectives on what it is like to go into nature when you have a child with disabilities and what we can do to make good nature experiences more inclusive of (families with) children with disabilities. 4.2 Place-based case – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK (DC/CU) The composition of the LC This case study has the following LC composition. The group is composed of participants with diverse backgrounds. The age of participants ranges from the thirties to the seventies. Considering ethnicity, the LC includes members from the black AfroCarribbean, British-Indian, British-Iranian and Indian born communities. Six out of the 10 LC members are female. Members have diverse marital status and educational background. The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case The Dadima’s CIC case study aims to explore and better understand the diverse lenses through which people of colour engage with, understand, and talk about the biodiversity agenda in its broadest sense. One of the goals is to promote intercultural nature dialogues where White middle-class people and Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups exchange and learn together about biodiversity, where different forms of knowledge (respecting all knowledge forms) are respected, discussed and built on as a LC. As part of the research, we would like to explore and address a number of pivotal questions: • How do you understand the word ‘biodiversity’? • Do you see its importance/relevance to your everyday life? • What do you see as potential challenges of learning about biodiversity for yourself, or the people you interact with? • How do you think you could make changes to this global agenda, if at all? • If you could learn more, what form would that learning take? • How do you feel that you could influence biodiversity agendas and make a difference, however small that maybe? • To what extent can various intervention methods (e.g. experiential learning and behavioural games, as well as creative and deliberative interventions), make a difference to understanding biodiversity knowledge? 32 4.3 Place-based case – Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) The composition of the LC or SB The PLANET4B LC is a dynamic and inclusive initiative comprised of nine participants who collectively bring a rich tapestry of perspectives and experiences. In line with our commitment to fostering diversity and inclusion, our LC embraces a wide range of intersectionality dimensions. Participants hail from various corners of the world, including India, Central Russia, and West Asia, offering a multicontinental perspective. We represent different ethnicities, religions, and genders, with a balanced ratio of three females and six males. The economic diversity among our members is equally remarkable, featuring individuals from migrant backgrounds, students, and selfemployed young people. Our age range spans from 22 to 27, reflecting the vibrant dynamism of the youth, all young people are currently residing in Erfurt. See Figure 18. 33 Figure 18. Expedition to Steigerwald Local Forest, Germany, including case partners and their LC, on September 1st-2nd, 2023. Source: case study members. While our community is exceptionally diverse, we acknowledge the importance of continuous growth. There may be specific types of actors who are not present in our community due to external constraints or limitations. We remain open to expanding our network and are actively seeking opportunities to further diversify our representation. Our commitment to inclusivity and a holistic approach to addressing environmental and social issues remains steadfast, and we are continuously exploring avenues to engage a broader spectrum of voices in our mission to shape a sustainable future for our planet. Thus, we expect that there will be periods where we will welcome new members to the LC while some of the original members might become less active. 34 The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case The co-designed learning objectives of the PLANET4B LC are centred on empowering young people, particularly those with less privilege, to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation in decision-making. These objectives are derived from a series of engaging and collaborative sessions that we conducted with our participants. These sessions included local forest expeditions, camping trips, creative workshops, and interactive game evenings, all aimed at assessing and enhancing their knowledge and behaviour related to biodiversity. These objectives are highly relevant because they address critical issues in contemporary society. • Firstly, the question of how empowered young people feel to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation is of paramount importance, as it touches upon inclusivity and the democratic process of decision-making. Recognising the underrepresentation of youth, especially those with fewer privileges, in decision-making processes is a key step toward rectifying this imbalance. • Secondly, investigating the impact of various intervention methods on empowering younger age groups is vital for shaping more environmentally conscious and active citizens. By understanding how experiential learning, behavioural games, and creative interventions affect youth, we can design more effective strategies for increasing biodiversity awareness and promoting sustainable decision-making. These objectives were chosen because they reflect the values and priorities of the diverse actors within our LC. Through co-design and a participatory approach, we ensured that these objectives resonated with the participants' interests and concerns. They encapsulate the core challenges and opportunities for youth engagement in biodiversity issues, aligning with our shared goal of fostering a sustainable future while considering the diverse backgrounds, needs, and aspirations of our participants. 4.4 Place-based case – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) The composition of the LC The LC of PLANET4B will be set up for the planning and the accompaniment of pilot activities, in the best case to be institutionalised beyond the PLANET4B-project as a working group or stakeholder board attached to a possible/planned municipal food council, the nature-conservation advisory board or as own body connected to the Department for Green Spaces and Water, which is part of the ‘City Planning Directorate’ (‘Stadtbaudirektion’). The main purpose of this board is to ensure that biodiversity and social inclusion (addressing intersectionality) are both addressed/considered in policy-related issues and the practical implementation of projects. In general, we are planning to have two LC: a policy LC, and at a later point in time, when the pilot activities will be planned in detail and implemented in practice, a citizen LC as well. At the current point in time, the policy LC is installed, and the following 12 people agreed to participate: 35 Table 3. The composition of the Learning Community of the case Edible City and Inclusion in Graz (FUG/IFZ). Source: case study members. Stakeholder (SH) Type of organisation Area of responsibility / discipline Gender, Age SH1 City of Graz administration Green spaces & water (in charge of the Biodiversity Strategy) Female, 40–50 Y SH2 City of Graz administration Nature conservation Male, 30–40 Y SH3 City of Graz administration Citizen engagement Male, 50–60 Y SH4 CSO Diversity & intersectionality; participation Female, 50–40 Y, handicapped SH5 NGO Nature Conservation Female, 40–50 Y SH6 CSO Science education, environmental education Male, 20–30 Y SH7 CSO Arts lab Female, 50–60 Y SH8 CSO Urban gardening Female, 20–30Y SH9 CSO Social work Male, 30–40 Y SH10 CSO Urban gardening Female, 20–30 Y SH11 University Urban gardening, education Female, 20–30 Y SH12 CSO Youth work Male, 40–50 Y SH13 CSO Science education, environmental education Female, 50–60 Y SH14 CSO Science education, Knowledge co-creation Female, 50–60 Y SH15 CSO Neighbourhood centre, social work Female, 30–40 Y SH16 CSO Neighbourhood centre, social work Female, 60–70 Y SH17 CSO Urban gardening practitioner Female, 20–30 Y SH18 University/CSO Sustainability / Urban Gardening Male, 20–30 Y SH19 University Citizen participation, sustainability projects Female, 20–30 Y SH20 CSO Urban gardening practitioner Female, 20–30 Y Some other key actors indicated their interest, but they were not able to participate in the event on October 18th, 2023. Our goal is to recruit a pool of 15–20 people for the policy LC, including representatives from the Migrant Advisory Board, Dept. For Women and Equality, Dept. for Economics and Tourism (in charge of developing the Food Strategy), Dept. for Social Affairs, Dept. for Health, and an association for elderly people as well. For the practical implementation of our pilot activities, we will engage representatives of local citizen groups in a citizen LC. With this, we will start as soon as we will have settled all the formalities necessary to start with the detailed design of the pilot area. 36 The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case During the project, the development of a site with a focus on a ‘biodiverse edible landscape’ will be initiated. This area will be developed according to the criteria of enhancing biodiversity and social inclusion, which will be defined, monitored and evaluated by the policy LC with guidance from the PLANET4B team. Special attention shall be paid to the diversity of people – who are eligible as (potential) users – whereby the voice of disadvantaged people shall be strengthened in such a way that they can contribute as equals – or if necessary privileged – compared to others. The concrete learning objectives will be 1) to successfully set up and conduct such a process of ‘caring about bio-/diversity’ within a project of green urban space development, and 2) the integration of lessons learnt (based on a reflection of the process) in policy-relevant agendas for similar future projects in the city of Graz. Details regarding the qualities of the learnings within the pilot area to be developed will be defined with the policy LC from October 18th, 2023, onwards. LO 1: at the level of planning of (edible) green spaces (policy). • LO Experiencing/creating inclusive/integrated policy-making (based on a joint definition by the LC of how inclusive participatory planning should be implemented). • Aligning and thereby fostering existing strategies of planning, biodiversity, food and social politics (by assessing recent indicators/measures and adding further from P4B learnings as well as by interconnecting these strategies based on joint activities within the LC and expert interviews): o biodiversity strategy (currently in elaboration); o sustainable food strategy (process for elaboration currently in discussion); o city development concept/strategy (STEK – revised this summer); o social policies: e.g. strategy for inclusion (first published in October 2023). LO 2: at the level of concrete projects (new design or renewal). • Enhancing biodiversity in urban spaces. • Experiencing participatory, socially inclusive and empowering process (by creating and implementing a green space design concept – including edibles and biodiversity – based on a joint effort with residents and users and other stakeholders with special attention of empowering marginalised groups). • Abstracting learning experiences and principles for policy level (by reflecting in P4B, with LC and additional expert interviews and elaborating a ’guide for intersectional and biodiverse green space planning’). 4.5 Place-based case – Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) The composition of the LC The following groups have been so far contacted to invite them and their members to participate as farmers in in-depth interviews and other persons with interest in biodiversity, religion and/or farming in learning communities’ discussion groups: 43 gender balance of participating students. Beside studying the school gardens, we will bring a participatory theatre to the selected schools through our collaboration with the Káva Theater and WWF Hungary and will also study the impacts of the participatory theatre play on students who are engaged in the garden and who are not. Table 5. Different intervention activities that will be tested during the case study. Source: case study members. Matching the types of schools with observation points School garden and theatre play Only school garden Only theatre play No intervention (control group) Rural / lowincome primary school X X Rural / lowincome secondary school X X X X Urban / highincome primary school X X Urban / highincome secondary school X X X X 4.9 Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) The composition of the SB Our stakeholder board / experts consist of high-level experts with a good overview of the individual topics covered in our case study at European level. Until the end of October 2023 six expert interviews were carried out (three read as women, three read as men; from Central and Southern Europe; advanced working age). We purposefully approached high-level experts for this phase to get a good overview and develop a generic European model. We plan to verify this model at individual study sites across Europe, where other actors will be involved (including male/female farmers, male/female labourers with diverse ethnicities, local politicians, environmental organisations, etc.). This way, we hope to include a greater diversity of actors in the case study. The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case We aim to identify potential links between European labour migration, agriculture, and biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. Specifically, we aim to find out how (migrant) labour availability influences farmers’ decision-making; how labour migration influences farms and agricultural landscapes regarding biodiversity; how vulnerable biodiversity on farms and in agricultural landscapes is to changes in labour 44 and migration policy. Finally, we aim to provide answers to those questions in immigration and emigration countries. We decided to focus on inter-European migration to set some boundaries and hopefully provide some policy recommendations at European level. One main (and expected) outcome from the expert interviews is that the role of labour availability and migration in the context of sustainable agriculture (organic agriculture, agroecology, conservation agriculture, etc.) and land use (land sharing vs. sparing) has received little attention by researchers in the past. Within this case study, we plan to involve stakeholders at different steps of the system dynamics (SD) process and to various degrees, as highlighted in Table 6. The process described in Table 6 highly depends on the scoping phase for problem definition, as this defines the direction of the entire study, important stakeholders, and interesting study sites within Europe. Thus, Steps 2–4 might change throughout the course of the SD approach, as is common for interor transdisciplinary approaches. Table 6. System dynamic step planned for the case study development. Source: case study factsheet. System Dynamic Step Methods used Stakeholder involvement Additional information Stage 1. Problem definition (Scoping) Literature review Expert interviews for scoping / hearing Iterative approach: Involvement of experts in the field during problem definition / hearing phase. A second interview with these experts will take place during the confirmation phase. We aim to include 2–3 key experts in the scoping / hearing phase, who have a good overview of migration, agricultural practices, and biodiversity protection. Together with these experts, we will define the problem à This stage defines the direction of the case study. We aim to develop one generic European model (yet to be verified through open questions in hearing phase). Stage 2. Problem characterisation and explanation and Stage 3. Model building Qualitative causal loop diagram (static mapping, showing direction and roughly the strength of impacts) The causal loop diagram will be fed with information from stakeholder interviews from different study sites. We will identify individual study sites (e.g. fruit picking in UK, asparagus harvesting in DE, family agriculture in RO) and relevant stakeholders / interview partners. These will mainly include farmers (to answer which biodiversityfriendly production practices depend on migrant workers and what would happen if labour availability decreased) and farm workers (to answer what motivated them to leave and 45 stay in addition to monetary compensation). At this point, we will test/illustrate the generic European model in case study sites. Develop a network of causal mechanisms in a causal loop diagram (CLD) explaining the dynamic phenomenon of interest, discuss this CLD from actor-specific perspectives, compare own mental models with the suggested CLD, discuss perceived differences in terms of causality or conceptual representation, elaborate the CLD Stage 4. Finding policy options to generate change (Confirmation) Systems analysis to identify policy levers Expert interviews for confirmation Extractive through interviews. Closing the iterative approach with stakeholders involved in Step 1 to confirm findings and discuss potential policy options. Potential policy options as well as the target audience for action will be identified once it is known what encourages and discourages biodiversity conservation in farming landscapes in both emigration and immigration countries. Stage 5. Testing policy options Use model to qualitatively test policy changes Include policy makers for feedback. This step will show whether policy levers have the intended impact and highlight potential unintended impacts. 4.10 Sectoral case – Trade & GVCs of soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) The composition of the SB Our SB includes seven participants (but this is subject to change in the course of the case study). Table 7 presents further details on the proportion of different actors (based on the quintuple-helix approach). We did not cover actors from the private/business sector, although we tried to contact these actors several times and through distinct methods (email, calls, LinkedIn, etc.). But in fact, we believe that, in the context of our case study, private actors are already strong power holders; thus, we believe that it is possible to skip their contribution to our SB, at least at this stage of the research. With regard to the inclusion of diverse actors representing different intersectionality dimensions, three of our SB members are women. Nonetheless, in the next steps of the research, we are trying to include more women, and other colleagues with varied intersectionality backgrounds (Indigenous peoples, members from black or quilombola communities in Brazil; farmers in the Netherlands, and others). 46 Specific actors that we would like to include in the future composition of our SB are: representatives of communities and local people affected by the soy and beef supply chains in Brazil (small farmers, Indigenous peoples, peasants, women impacted by soy/beef monocultures, etc.) and vulnerable actors, linked to these value chains in the Netherlands (farmers, workers, etc.). We hope to include at least some of these members in the future configurations of the SB. Table 7. Detailed composition of the Stakeholder Board of the case Trade (RU) as of October 3rd, 2023. Source: case study members. Sector Initial letters of SB member Area of responsibility / discipline Academia D.A. (female, global south) Assistant professor in International Relations in the Federal University of Bahia, Brazil N. S. (male, global south) Assistant professor in International Relations in the University of Brasília, Brazil Environmental NGOs R. R. (female, global north) Researcher in the NGO AidEnvironment, where she specialises in EU supply chain regulations such as the EUDR – The Netherlands D. O. (female, global north) Forest program manager at the Friends of the Earth, where she focuses on deforestation control and environmental justice – The Netherlands Business Sector – – Civil Society M. E. (male, global south) Ex-public policies analyst at the WWF-Brazil L. B. (male, global north) Coordinator and researcher at the Stichting Boerengroep (La Via Campesina) – The Netherlands Government L.D. (male, global south) Adjunct deputy on the Ministry of Agrarian Development and Family Farming of Brazil The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case Together with our Stakeholder Board, we agreed on the following Learning Objectives (LO): LO1: To understand the potential and limitations of recent European Union supply chain policies, for example the EUDR (European Union Deforestation Regulation) and the CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive), to curb deforestation and biodiversity loss in Brazil and the Netherlands, as well as the interplay between EU policies and relevant national policies in Brazil and the Netherlands. • Monitoring deforestation and the empirical trajectory of due diligence, and understand how this is associated with large multinational traders and markets of soy and beef in Brazil and the European Union/Netherlands. 47 o Investigate how operators and large traders, connected to the BrazilEU/Dutch supply chains of beef and soy, are promoting due diligence in light of the requisites of the EUDR. • Characterise and understand the complementarities between the EUDR (regulation) and the CSDDD (directive). • Map how the EUDR will be interconnected with national policies at the Dutch and Brazil level. o Interactions between the EUDR (EU-level), the EU Common Agricultural Policy (EU-level), and the Dutch Agricultural Agreement (Netherlands level), among others. o In Brazil, potential policies are the Forest Code, PPCDAm and PPCerrado, Programa de Aquisiçāo de Alimentos, among others. • Study how the EUDR will be implemented at the National Level, considering the Netherlands (currently at the implementation stage of the EDUR). • Highlight the impacts of the currently limited EUDR coverage, which does not apply to other Brazilian biomes, such as the Pantanal, Atlantic Forest. • Observe how civil Society can influence the EUDR implementation. • Pay attention to the Article 30 of the EURD, about complementary measures or agreements with producer countries to curb deforestation. • Analyse how the revisions of the EUDR will take place, since there will be a revision towards other ecosystems (other wooded lands), a crucial process for biodiversity protection in Brazil. • Understand better the limits of the EUDR with regard to: o How to improve the review process, since the law does not cover human rights aspects. o Investigate the level in which the EUDR is being used as a market creation vector for technology companies that produce, for example, solutions for supply chain traceability. o Investigate if or how the EUDR could include territorial rights in sourcing countries such as Brazil. o Understand better the limits of the 2020 timeframe in the EUDR. • Track the process of implementation of the EUDR in the Netherlands, and identify the main conflicts, actors involved and vested interests. • Understand the potential impact of the EUDR on smallholders, considering intersectionality (especially after the revision of the regulation, which currently focuses mainly on large firms). • Understand how relevant Trade Agreements (between the EU and sourcing countries) can be affected by the EUDR. • Policy gap analysis considering the EUDR and, if possible, the CSDDD. • Observe how the Benchmarks will be set up after the EUDR implementation (definition of high risk countries, low risk countries), considering that this is a highly political process. LO2: Identify and analyse distinct socio-biodiversity challenges, risks and opportunities (for biodiversity and people, considering intersectionality) connected to the soy and the beef supply chains in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon biomes (supply side) and in the Netherlands (demand side). 48 • Better understand how the phenomenon of virtual waters in Brazil is associated with soy expansion and its socio-environmental impacts, particularly in the Cerrado biome. • Understand the different rural conflicts associated with soy and beef supply chains in Brazil. • Understand how women, Indigenous peoples, and forest peoples are considerably more impacted by the same social processes that cause biodiversity loss. For example, women’s contamination by pesticides used in soy plantations, that eventually poison water sources, given that women are the ones who usually have the most contact with water through daily handling (cooking, cleaning, etc.). • Understand the impacts of the soy and beef supply chains for Indigenous peoples. • Revisit and investigate the PPCDAm and PPCerrado (national policies in Brazil for the Amazon and the Cerrado biomes) and connections with the issue of land grabbing. • Study the processes of green land grabbing and land regulation, see land grabbing areas which, despite not being geophysical suitable for agribusiness, are grabbed for other purposes. • Better understand the concept of “deforestation” that is adopted in EU regulations, especially regarding other wooded lands in the Cerrado. • Understand how intersectionality and socio-environmental violence are associated with the soy and beef valuer chains in the Dutch (demand) side, for example: o pollution from industrial farming system, industrial livestock and food processing (soy and beef) – e.g. use of pesticides, herbicides in the Netherlands; o drinking water contamination in the Netherlands; o working conditions: migrants working in slaughterhouses in the Netherlands. • The impacts of the infrastructures (roads, ports, airports, dams, energy infrastructure etc.) for soy and beef production and trade in Brazil considering biodiversity and people. • Understand how alternative value chains linked to the bioeconomy can work towards better biodiversity and better conditions for people (e.g. Sempre Viva flower picker women; Babaçuais in the MATOPIBA region, others). • Analyse better alternative production systems in soy and beef producing regions, rooted in the forests (e.g. Cerrado and Amazon) standing, including local value chains (e.g. non-timber products incl. guarana, nuts and fruits, handicrafts) beneficial to biodiversity conservation and to improve local livelihoods and wellbeing. These two broad LOs reflect the diverse values of members of our SB. Civil society members highlighted the potential of the case study to understand the impacts of regulations such as the EUDR on human rights and minority peoples in Brazil and the Netherlands, particularly in the implementation and revision phases of the regulation. Members from academia highlighted the importance of understanding the structural dimensions of biodiversity loss and environmental violence, in Brazil and the Netherlands, but also more broadly, in connection with the supply chains and trade of the beef and soy commodities. Special attention was given to the connections of the 49 soy and beef supply chains with topics such as water, health, pollution, rural violence, land grabbing and the nitrogen crisis, reflecting the broader perspective and deep knowledge of our SB members. Additionally, Indigenous peoples, smallholders, family farmers, peasants and women were cited as vulnerable groups that should be further researched in the context of the case study. 4.11 Sectoral case – Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EUNorway (NINA) The composition of the SB The Stakeholder Board for our case study in the financial sector consists of a diverse group of participants who play pivotal roles in the industry's ecosystem. The Board was carefully constructed to encompass a broad spectrum of perspectives on investor cognitive biases in the context of ESG uncertainty. The Board is composed of the following members: 1. SH1 (male) – Partnership for Biodiversity Accounting Financials (PBAF)/CREM; 2. SH2 (male) – UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); 3. SH3 (female) – UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC); 4. SH4 (male) – Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures (TNFD); 5. SH5 (male) – Senior Specialist on Nature; 6. SH6 (female) – Kommunal Landspensjonskasse (KLP); 7. SH7 (female) – Capitals Coalition. Rafal Chudy and David Barton, case leaders from NINA, moderated the SB meetings. The Board members represent six different organisations that are closely involved in the subject of biodiversity and finances. These actors represent global collaborative platforms and multi-stakeholder initiatives (e.g. TNFD, Capitals Coalition), and financial sector representatives (e.g. KLP pension fund), as those are the most crucial stakeholders to help us achieve our study objectives. The stakeholders represent different intersectionality dimensions, such as gender, age, and background. The stakeholder board implemented multi-actor approach, representing a diverse range of stakeholder institutions to foster a collaborative and impactful dialogue. However, we did not have the freedom to choose other intersectionality characteristics of our stakeholder board. Recruiting financial corporation actors to our SB has proven to be challenging. While we acknowledge the importance of their perspective in our case study, we have proactively engaged with other stakeholders who are more readily accessible and willing to participate. Nevertheless, we remain open to future engagement with these actors and will continue our efforts to foster meaningful dialogue and cooperation to enhance the comprehensiveness of our research. The Learning Objectives (LOs) of the case In the complex environment of investments, characterised often by uncertainty, limited information and bounded rationality, cognitive biases may play a crucial role in 50 influencing investors decisions. Cognitive biases are predictable, systematic errors that arise when people rely on simplified information processing strategies (heuristics) when making decisions or judgements. To our knowledge, no comprehensive review of the grey and scientific literature has been done regarding cognitive biases that influence financial actors' use of ESG metrics in investment decisions and how these biases may harm biodiversity at the local level and portfolio allocation. Out of our SB meetings, we expect to yield valuable insights with respect to: 1. Understanding how different actors perceive and prioritise ESG factors. Do they overemphasise short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability, leading to biases in decision-making? 2. Are they aware of cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias (favoring information that confirms preexisting beliefs), or overconfidence bias (overestimating the accuracy of one's judgments), and how these biases may influence their ESG utilisation. Are financial actors aware that various biases may lead to suboptimal investment decisions that harm biodiversity at the local level, or entire portfolios? Conversations can include whether stakeholders exhibit biases such as familiarity bias (preferring familiar investments) or recency bias (giving undue importance to recent events), which could impact the allocation of resources to biodiversity-related investments. It will be interesting to learn about risk perception of financial actors and for instance how temporal discounting of environmental risk may result in underinvestment in biodiversity preservation efforts. 3. Also, we would like to understand better from stakeholders how cognitive biases may impact local-level investment decisions. We will explore, e.g. distance bias (underestimating the importance of distant events) that may lead to underestimating the harm to local biodiversity resulting from distant investments. 5 Discussing the lessons learnt, the intersectionality dimensions and outreach of LCs and SBs The lead authors of this report, which are the leaders of Task 3.1 and WP1, asked cases to write 1–2 paragraphs about the main lessons learnt so far. This could include challenges cases have faced, achievements, surprises (conceptually, or methodologically), or adjustments to their earlier plans. We also asked cases to include a more critical reflection on how the original approach of contacting stakeholders and setting up LCs/SBs worked (or did not work). Again, in the following discussions, we have “given voice” to the cases to express their reflections. Intensive case – OOF/NINA Given our special responsibility to be inclusive of age and (dis)abilities, OOF and NINA spent much time discussing who our focal group should be, concretely, and how to work with this group. We decided to work with children with disabilities to give a voice to those for whom nature experiences may be especially beneficial yet not necessarily easily accessible. Because working with children is ethically challenging and caretakers and children with disabilities may easily become exhausted, we spent much time thinking about how to best approach and work with this group. This has been an iterative process. We adjusted our plans many times before landing on our current 51 approach which is guided by Institutional Ethnography and much inspired by the work and mentor program of the Sunnaass Foundation, who has been pivotal and very supportive of our work. To set up our LC, we chose a bottoms-up-driven approach whereby we started with a smaller group of people who are experts on practicing outdoor recreation with disabilities and making nature experiences inclusive of children and young adults with disabilities. The initial contact with the mentors who were recruited to our LC, was made possible by the Sunnaass Foundation. Based on the expertise, needs, and wishes of our Learning Community, the community will grow over time to include additional, relevant people. Consequently, we are currently recruiting two parents of children with disabilities. Although our recruitment process deviates from the quintuple helix approach, we feel that our approach is very much aligned with the core principles of PLANET4B as it is guided by the needs and wishes of our focal group. OOF and NINA thus feel confident that our activities will be directly relevant for providing good nature experiences for children and youth with disabilities. Intensive case – DC/CU The challenges so far for us have been our time in relation to our full-time jobs, planning our daughter’s wedding which takes place over October/November, and keeping up with various email chains. We were pleasantly surprised that all the stakeholders we approached were keen to participate and accepted our invitation to participate. Intensive case – CGE/MLU The early experiences of the PLANET4B LC have yielded valuable lessons that have informed our approach and will guide our future activities. Firstly, we were pleasantly surprised by the enthusiasm and engagement of the LC members. Their eagerness to continue active participation and even lead workshops themselves is a testament to the project's success in fostering a sense of ownership and empowerment among the participants. For instance, one of our members’ initiative to incorporate the methods we've used into his Training Course on sustainability showcases the ripple effect of our efforts to promote experiential learning and biodiversity awareness. One significant adjustment we've made is the realisation that for a deep dive into experiential learning, multiple-day activities are more effective. While day trips and overnight stays can bring young people closer to biodiversity, they may not suffice to bring about significant changes in attitude. Longer engagements allow for a more profound connection to nature and increased opportunities for reflection. Moreover, we've recognised that for a more substantial impact, activities should incorporate several methods. This approach allows for a more holistic learning experience and aligns with our mission to empower youth and inspire sustainable decision-making. In retrospect, our approach of engaging stakeholders and setting up LCs has proven successful in generating enthusiasm and commitment among participants, positioning them as active agents of change. It has demonstrated the potential for a collective effort to address critical environmental challenges effectively. As we move forward, we are excited to build on these early insights, encouraging the exchange of methods and knowledge within the LC and designing multi-faceted activities to create a lasting impact on biodiversity awareness and decision-making. 52 Intensive case – FUG/IFZ As we are still in the very beginning of the process of interacting with our LC, we cannot build that much on challenges we already faced, but more on those we anticipate. Starting with the positive aspects, already established good contacts with city representatives will be crucial for the successful implementation of our pilot activities. We are very lucky that we found allies in the Dept. for Green Spaces and Water, who support our plans. Another important ally is a representative from the Dept. for Citizen Participation, who already participated in our first event in December 2022. On the other hand, the Dept. in charge of elaborating the Sustainable Food Strategy is at the current point in time still sceptical about our intervention. Representatives participated as well in the Event in December 2022 as in the Event in June 2023, but they are reluctant to participate in our P4B pilot. In general, the political system at the city level does not build a favourable environment for integrated policy-making as it relies on a proportz system and departments are not much in favour of working together (particularly if different parties run different departments). Moreover, city strategies are not or hardly coordinated, and it is not clear how the strategies are monitored and evaluated – e.g. the STEK document is central to the city development, but it does not contain any detailed measures and actions for its implementation. A particular challenge is certainly the recruitment of participants, as we are not only looking for their appreciation of our project but also need their active participation and support. In this context, it is not only important to convince them of the importance of our project but also to establish concrete links to their areas of responsibility and expertise. As the process takes place over a longer period of time and continuity in engagement will be important, participants need to show a high degree of commitment. In order to achieve sustainability, long-term commitment particularly from key actors will be crucial. For the citizen LC it will be very important that we will be able to practically implement something which will last beyond the project duration. The recruitment of engaged citizens might become challenging as well as this refers first to the general interest of a group of people to engage, but also to our decisions on whom to approach (we will definitely not be able to organise a very broad citizen engagement process), and whom not. We needed to withdraw the plan involving young people in needs through the organisation ‘Youth at Work’ in a LC in the context of the practical implementation of pilot activities. First, it is formally very complicated, secondly because they can only participate for a few months in this programme, which would be too short for the LC implementation. Finally, it is very important to align LC participants’ expectations towards the project with what we actually can do. Therefore, very transparent communication in regard to that is of high importance. 59 Table 9. Representing the members of learning communities and stakeholder boards according to the quintuple-helix approach. Source: authors’ own elaboration. Cases The five helices Civil society Academia Business sector Governmental sector Nature Nature recreation in Oslo 3 – – – – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK 10 – – – – Urban Youth in Germany 9 – – – – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz 7 1 – 3 1 Swiss attitudes towards agrobiodiversity and religion – – 5 – – “From ego-system to ecosystem” in fashion in Italy 1 1 3 1 2 Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary 1 1 2 – 1 Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary 1 4 – 3 2 Agriculture and migration in the EU – 5 – – – Trade and GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands 2 2 – 1 2 Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway 1 1 2 2 – TOTAL 35 15 12 10 8 With regard to the Learning Objectives, Table 10 summarises all LOs per case study, and categorises such objectives according to their focus area. While all cases are research-driven, some LOs (particularly from extensive cases) are research-intensive based in more traditional social science research methods, for example, interviews and literature reviews to explore different trajectories of biodiversity action (or inaction) in the respective research topics of the cases. Several LOs are driven by understanding the power of interventions to trigger biodiversity prioritisation and action. Finally, other LOs aim at exploring policy change at the local, national, international, or sectoral level. 60 Table 10. Learning Objectives per Case and Respective Focus Areas. Source: authors’ own elaboration. Cases Learning Objectives Focus Areas of Learning Objectives Research Interventions Exploring policy change Place-based case – Nature recreation in Oslo The first alternative objective could be to outscale the Sunnaas Foundation mentoring program to settings outside of the Sunnaas Foundation. The second alternative objective builds on an identified need for aggregating and making information about recreational activities and opportunities for good nature experiences accessible to parents of, and youth and children with disabilities. X X Place-based case – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the UK The case study aims to explore and better understand the diverse lenses through which people of colour engage with, understand, and talk about the biodiversity agenda in its broadest sense. One of the goals is to promote intercultural nature dialogues where White middle-class people and Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) groups exchange and learn together about biodiversity, where different forms of knowledge (respecting all knowledge forms) are respected, discussed and built on as a learning community. X Place-based case – Urban Youth in Germany Firstly, the question of how empowered young people feel to influence biodiversity and nature prioritisation is of paramount importance, as it touches upon inclusivity and the democratic process of decision-making. Recognising the X X 61 underrepresentation of youth, especially those with fewer privileges, in decision-making processes is a key step toward rectifying this imbalance. Secondly, investigating the impact of various intervention methods on empowering younger age groups is vital for shaping more environmentally conscious and active citizens. By understanding how experiential learning, behavioural games, and creative interventions affect youth, we can design more effective strategies for increasing biodiversity awareness and promoting sustainable decisionmaking. Place-based case – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz Firstly, to successfully set up and conduct such a process of ‘caring about bio-/diversity’ within a project of green urban space development. This objective is at the level of planning of (edible) green spaces (policy), including: a) experiencing/creating inclusive/integrated policymaking (based on a joint definition by the LC of how inclusive participatory planning should be implemented; and b) aligning and thereby fostering existing strategies of planning, biodiversity, food and social politics (by assessing recent indicators/measures and adding further from P4B learnings as well as by interconnecting these strategies based on joint activities within the LC and expert interviews). Secondly, the integration of lessons learnt (based on a reflection of the process) in policyrelevant agendas for similar future projects in the city of Graz. X X X 62 This goal is at the level of concrete projects (new design or renewal), including: a) enhancing biodiversity in urban spaces; b) experiencing participatory, socially inclusive and empowering process (by creating and implementing a green space design concept – incl. edibles and biodiversity – based on a joint effort with residents and users and other stakeholders with special attention of empowering marginalised groups); c) abstracting learning experiences and principles for policy level (by reflecting in P4B, with LC and additional expert interviews and elaborating a ’guide for intersectional and biodiverse green space planning’). Place-based case – Swiss attitudes towards agrobiodiversity and religion The Learning Objective of the case study is to find out about how religious beliefs do or could affect farming behaviour that is of relevance to biodiversitypromoting or preserving farming behaviour. How policies could influence this process or relationship between religious beliefs and probiodiversity farming will also be explored. X X Sectoral case – “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy Firstly, understanding interdependencies between loss/gain of biodiversity and the fashion industry included indirect and less visible ones. Secondly, highlighting which are the knowledge gaps to be filled and the possible leverage points for systemic change. Thirdly, identifying and supporting the formation of the possible coalitions to envision/design policy recommendations and X X 63 contribute to implementing some steps. Sectoral case – Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary Firstly, the case study is interested in the nature-human / biodiversity-human / agriculturehuman relationships as expressed and communicated by different art forms. Secondly, there is an interest in understanding better how the narratives of agrobiodiversity are gendered. Thirdly, the case study aims to learn about how and what kinds of arts-based methods can be applied creatively and effectively if the general public is the target audience. X X Sectoral case – Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary The agreed learning objective of the case is: to develop and test reliable tool(s) to measure the impacts on attitudes and behaviour induced by biodiversity focused educational approaches. To achieve this learning objective, the case leaders will test different impact assessment approaches including easy to conduct quantitative tools (e.g. survey-like tools such at the nature connectedness scale or the children’s environmental attitudes scale) but also more creative, arts-based tools (e.g. photovoice or collage) and will corroborate the results through observations. We will work together with partner schools where a school gardening project is up and running. X X Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU The case study aims to identify potential links between European labour migration, agriculture, and biodiversity conservation in agricultural landscapes. X 64 Specifically, the case study aims to find out how (migrant) labour availability influences farmers’ decision-making; how labour migration influences farms and agricultural landscapes regarding biodiversity. The case also aims to find out how vulnerable biodiversity on farms and in agricultural landscapes is to changes in labour and migration policy. Finally, the case aims to provide answers to those questions in immigration and emigration countries. The focus is on interEuropean migration to set some boundaries and hopefully provide some policy recommendations at European level. Sectoral case – Trade and GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands Firstly, to understand the potential and limitations of recent European Union supply chain policies, for example the EUDR (European Union Deforestation Regulation) and the CSDDD (Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive), to curb deforestation and biodiversity loss in Brazil and the Netherlands, as well as the interplay between EU policies and relevant national policies in Brazil and the Netherlands. Secondly, to identify and analyse distinct socio-biodiversity challenges and risks (for biodiversity and people, considering intersectionality) connected to the soy and the beef supply chains in Brazil’s Cerrado and Amazon biomes (supply side) and in the Netherlands (demand side). X X Sustainable investment Firstly, understanding how different actors perceive and X 65 behaviour GlobalEU-Norway prioritise ESG factors. Do they overemphasise short-term financial gains over long-term sustainability, leading to biases in decision-making? Secondly, the case study aims to understand if different financial actors are aware of cognitive biases, such as confirmation bias (favouring information that confirms preexisting beliefs), or overconfidence bias (overestimating the accuracy of one's judgments), and how these biases may influence their ESG utilisation. Are financial actors aware that various biases may lead to suboptimal investment decisions that harm biodiversity at the local level, or entire portfolios? Conversations can include whether stakeholders exhibit biases such as familiarity bias (preferring familiar investments) or recency bias (giving undue importance to recent events), which could impact the allocation of resources to biodiversityrelated investments. It will be interesting to learn about risk perception of financial actors and for instance how temporal discounting of environmental risk may result in underinvestment in biodiversity preservation efforts. Thirdly, the case study would like to understand better from stakeholders how cognitive biases may impact local-level investment decisions. We will explore, e.g. distance bias (underestimating the importance of distant events) that may lead to underestimating the harm to local biodiversity resulting from distant investments. 66 6 Conclusion and outlook WP3 aims to co-produce transformative change stories together with local actors and change agents and share these stories to generate understanding, increase motivation, overcome barriers and foster behavioural and institutional change in localities and at broader scales. In this context, the core goal of Task 3.1 in the first project year was to help cases to establish diverse Learning Communities and Stakeholder Boards in different localities and sectors, as well as co-define with these LCs and SBs the Learning Objectives of these cases. As the previous sections evidence, all 11 cases have made good progress in the first year of the project by reaching out to key actors and engaging them in the process of co-designing the learning objectives, although the paths they took were highly diverse. Our initial intention was that sectoral (extensive) cases would be more literature based, while locally rooted (intensive) cases develop more active interaction with stakeholders. However, some of the sectoral (extensive) cases realised a huge willingness to participate on behalf of their stakeholders, and therefore took a more active direction (e.g. the fashion, the agrobiodiversity, and the public education case). Additionally, while the general question is the same across all cases (i.e. how to foster behavioural and institutional change to safeguard and prioritise biodiversity in decision-making), the specific foci of the cases reflect the needs of local communities and main stakeholders as well as the contextual specificities. Due to this topical and contextual diversity, the stakeholder analysis and the literature review carried out by the case leaders pointed to different actors as having key importance in each and every case. Ensuring the diversity of people invited to LCs and SBs is a crucial strategy to cross boundaries between academia and society, and to build bridges between economic, policy and civil society actors. However, engaging diverse community actors and stakeholders in a meaningful way is possible only if tailor-made approaches are used to contacting and interacting with them. Engagement approaches applied in the first year of the project ranged from surveys and one-to-one interviews to conferences, workshops, as well as art-based or gamified meetings. In some cases which target especially vulnerable actors (e.g. children living with disabilities, people practicing different religions or coming from varied ethnic backgrounds), creating a safe space is a crucial requirement to start the broader engagement. Therefore, in some occasions separate meetings for different actors or preparatory meetings in smaller groups were needed, or intermediary actors were invited to the LC/SB who can build bridges to specific (vulnerable) groups. While such tailor-made approaches required more care on behalf of the researchers (and resulted in some discrepancy in timing), it helped build trust with the key actors. The success of the approach is well indicated by the fact that several cases highlighted in their reflection the enthusiasm of their learning community or stakeholder board members. Drawing on the personal reflections of case researchers, we are glad to report that in most cases invited stakeholders were very enthusiastic about the project, and offered further support (e.g. contacts, active participation, in some cases even human resources) to achieve the learning objectives. Nevertheless, some challenges were also identified. One key challenge is the deep level of engagement required by stakeholders (especially members of the Learning Communities). As no financial incentives are provided to participants, their motivation to get engaged depends mostly on how well the learning objectives align with their aspirations (either at the individual 67 or at the community level). Another key challenge identified is the inertia in the political and economic sectors. As some of the cases highlighted, biodiversity is often a side issue in specific sectors or locations (e.g. fashion industry or public education), and centralised and siloed decision-making does not support policy integration and biodiversity mainstreaming. To combat these challenges, the PLANET4B team will pay special attention to method selection (i.e. pair the most suitable intervention to every case) which can ensure a high level of motivation of stakeholders and community members (See Figure 19). Figure 19. Intensive and extensive cases, Advisory Board members, and coordination team during the Consortium Meeting of PLANET4B on October 26th, 2023, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Source: project’s repository of images. The progress of the cases in the first year – and this deliverable reporting about the achieved results – gives valuable input to a detailed systems mapping and the identification of leverage points, which are the necessary next steps to trigger systemwide transformations (Task 3.2). This deliverable will also be useful for WP4 in terms of highlighting relevant policy areas and identifying Learning Objectives which offer direct or indirect policy impacts. Finally, the process reported in this deliverable is inherently interlinked with the theoretical conceptualisation (WP1) and the methodological development (WP2) activities. WP1 and WP2 already provided guidance and input to the case study related work, and this collaboration will be continued in the future as well, for instance through further dialogues around intersectionality and methodological trainings on different types of interventions. 68 The work carried out in the first year by the cases already provided multiple benefits which go beyond the PLANET4B project. Several cases reported that members of their LC or SB were happy to get engaged, enjoyed the interaction with other actors (in some cases with actors whom they rarely talk), and become enthusiastic about the codefined learning objectives. This indicates that the process already contributed to build new relationships among stakeholders and in some cases helped form bottom-up communities of practice. Moreover, thanks to the prevailing of intersectionality dimensions, new voices could be channelled into professional and public dialogues around biodiversity. This can be a first step of empowering vulnerable groups and can also be an enriching experience for those who represent the more powerful actors or those who are in majority. In sum, PLANET4B cases could make important steps towards the appreciation and operationalisation of the diverse values social actors attach to nature, which is an important leverage point for sustainability transitions (Pascual et al., 2023). Nevertheless, whether and how PLANET4B cases will be able to make a true impact on social and policy decision-making towards biodiversity prioritisation can be realised only in the next years.