Panel 1.7. Societal transformations and biodiversity: Understanding the interplay of institutional, interpersonal, and intrapersonal change

In the last several years, the importance of Indigenous rights and knowledge systems in nature conservation and resource management has been acknowledged by science and
policy bodies, such as the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The concept of biocultural conservation has taken a leading role in bridging the worlds of biodiversity conservation, Indigenous cultural heritage, and numerous disciplines with wide differentiation in epistemologies, from ecology to politics to humanities. While the concept is, in many ways, able to bring together many schools of thought and provide a way forward for socially just conservation, there are also tensions both practically and theoretically. To gain insight, we explore the synergies and tensions between biocultural conservation and theories of the commons. Our intention is to show how these two approaches are complementary in theory and in practice, despite their differences, and how the synergies and contradictions can improve practice in projects involving culture and conservation. Ideally this paper could serve as a guide for scholars and practitioners regarding which perspectives are most useful in which kinds of situations.

Biodiversity loss poses an increasing threat to humanity, yet it remains under-prioritised in policy and practice. This is partly due to a limited understanding of the behavioural and decision-making mechanisms driving biodiversity loss. Research on how behavioural theories can inform biodiversity policy, advocacy, and transformative change is limited, hindering effective action. We propose that these theories could help identify barriers and opportunities for biodiversity prioritisation and transformative action.

This paper explores the application of behavioural theories in biodiversity through the PLANET4B project. We conducted a systematic literature review, focusing on key behavioural theories, including collective action and common-pool resource theories. Using transformation and biodiversity as keywords, we analysed the context in which these theories are applied.

Our findings highlight prominent theories and their use in biodiversity research, revealing significant gaps. The results indicate that a deeper understanding and enhanced deployment of behavioural and social science theories is essential for effectively influencing policy and governance at various levels, steering biodiversity prioritisation.

This paper provides an overview of behavioural theories applied in the realm of biodiversity research, highlighting also the potential how to use them more to enhance biodiversity prioritisation. Such insights could help elevate biodiversity on personal and political agendas, fostering more effective and empowered action.

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) seeks to halt biodiversity loss by integrating a human-rights approach, offering significant benefits and challenges. Key prospects include enhanced community engagement, particularly for Indigenous peoples and local communities (IPLCs), ensuring their participation in conservation efforts and leveraging traditional knowledge. This framework also promotes accountability for governments and corporations by establishing legal standards that protect biodiversity and community rights. Additionally, it emphasizes the link between biodiversity and human well-being, addressing social issues like poverty and education alongside ecological goals. Increased global awareness can foster international collaboration and attract funding for initiatives aligned with human rights.

However, challenges persist, such as political resistance from some governments concerned about sovereignty and the complexity of translating human rights into actionable policies in regions with weak governance. Balancing conservation efforts with community rights can lead to conflicts, and a lack of awareness among stakeholders further complicates implementation. Establishing clear metrics to measure the impact of this approach is also difficult.

This paper will highlight efforts being made by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Commission for Environmental, Economic an Social Policy (CEESP) since 2013, to develop clear metrics to measure the impact of integrating a human-rights approach to biodiversity conservation. The most significant challenge being disagreements over whether to go with qualitative or with quantitative metrics The paper uses case studies from Colombia, Indonesia, Malawi and Rwanda to illustrate its arguments. The paper shows that while a human-rights approach within the GBF presents valuable opportunities for biodiversity conservation and social equity, overcoming the challenges of integration requires not only political will, and collaboration among all stakeholders, but also epistemic dialogue and possible compromises in order to move forward together.

Intensive agricultural trade is often associated with environmental injustice, affecting marginalised communities while depleting forests, rivers and biodiversity. To tackle biodiversity loss and forest degradation, and to decouple agricultural imports from deforestation in commodity producing countries, in 2023 the EU approved the Regulation on Deforestation Free Products (EUDR). However, civil society organisations claim that the EUDR overlooks the underlying drivers of environmental injustice, for humans and non-humans. For example, land tenure conflicts between local communities and big farmers, and the financial stakeholders linked to activities leading to forest loss and land dispossession. In this article, we assess the Dutch-Brazilian beef and soy value chains through the lens of intersectional environmental justice (IEJ). Intersectionality helps us identify injustices, the drivers and associated actors. Brazil is the leading soy exporter globally, the Netherlands is the main soy importer in the EU, and the bilateral soy trade is connected to forest degradation, rising emissions, and pesticide pollution. Similarly, international beef trade directly connects the Netherlands with deforestation and land conflicts in Brazil. Yet, no previous study has mapped intersectional environmental injustices in these supply chains. To close this gap, we identify and discuss such injustices. We also discuss how these injustices could potentially be targeted in the EUDR. Our data includes 20 semi-structured interviews with environmental NGOs, businesses, government and academics from both countries. The paper identifies groups causing the issues, as well as the most impacted. We also examine resistance projects against these injustices. With this approach, we suggest how future versions of the EUDR can potentially benefit from tackling such problems.

The loss of global biodiversity is recognised by politics and science as a global crisis. Its anthropogenic causes require a radical societal transformation, but stakeholder interests and low political priority decelerate action. The term’s complexity and its vague usage in everyday life hinder public engagement and allow for a variety of understandings of the drivers and impacts of biodiversity decline in public discourse. News outlets play a crucial role in shaping how biodiversity is understood and valued. This study explores how European news outlets represent "biodiversity" and traces the evolution of this discourse over time. Using a case study approach, we analysed the discourse on biodiversity in news articles from Austria, Czechia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Switzerland and United Kingdom. For each country, five widely circulated national news outlets with diverse ideological perspectives were selected. For each news outlet, we collected articles mentioning biodiversity published in 2010 and 2022, yielding 169 and 385 articles, respectively. The articles were analysed using a qualitative content analysis in which statements were categorised with a framework focusing on definitions, values, rhetorical functions and actors. The results show that biodiversity is only rarely defined in European media. Over time, its attributed values have shifted from nature-centred (‘ecocentric’) to human-centred (‘anthropocentric’), though the implications of this shift remain unclear. Additionally, while the term used to be frequently associated with scientific actors in 2010, by 2022 a broader range of actors, mainly NGOs and governments, had gained prominence. Cross-country differences were also noted, particularly in the emotional tone of reporting. The analysis offers a broad overview of biodiversity discourse of European news outlets and offers valuable insights for future policy and communication strategies. This nuanced analysis underscores the complexity and plurality of biodiversity values and discourses in Europe.

Traditionally, various structure dimensions, including community, governance, and patriarchy, have always played a vital role in women's lives. Globally, women have been raising their voices for their rights, which are on the one hand granted in countries like India through their constitution. Things have improved with efforts like changes in legislation and policies and the creation of structures within the institutions to implement such guidelines. Interestingly, at the community level, it’s the structure that governs women’s agency and their ability to exercise such rights. Women have been the caretakers of commons in their communities as nurturers and bearers of traditional knowledge down the generations and share the responsibilities equally with men. But exercising their rights to make decisions related to the conservation, preservation, and protection of commons, they often lack of ability to assert. Rights to make decisions related to commons are often taken collectively by the community, but the structure itself functions under the criteria of exclusion. The structure provides land and resource rights which exclude based on gender, caste, tribe, and social status, resulting in disempowering the vulnerable. In tribal communities, in Odisha, it is important to understand the contribution of women to the conservation of commons. This paper discusses significant insight gathered through an exploratory study on Land Rights and Empowerment of Tribal Women in Odisha. The findings are based on the primary data gathered from 250 Indigenous women who possess land titles in Kandhamal and Mayurbhanj districts of Odisha, and secondary field data from other implementing agencies in the state, providing insight into mechanisms for equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of traditional biological resources and knowledge. Drawing from existing literature, the paper also discusses the State’s duties to respect, protect, and accomplish this right, especially concerning the freedom of women as end-users.

Across the globe, nature-based solutions (NbS) are pursued to address interrelated environmental, social, and economic challenges. They often span multiple policy domains at once, thus encompassing diverse actors and stakeholders interacting within polycentric and cross-sectoral governance structures. As this can create challenging trade-offs and substantial complexity for researchers and practitioners, a comprehensive understanding of governance structures, outcomes, and factors for effectiveness is crucial. However, assessments of NbS effectiveness frequently remain limited to biophysical outcomes with insufficient recognition of social effects, as well as the interconnectedness and diversity of outcomes within complex socio-ecological systems. We argue that the Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) and Network of Action Situations (NAS) frameworks are particularly suited for navigating this complexity inherent to nature-based solutions. Moreover, they provide means for the integrated analysis of outcomes and the factors behind effectiveness.

To explore the extent to which the frameworks were hitherto applied to our questions of interest and what conceptual deficits remain, our study presents a systematic literature review of IAD and NAS applications to NbS contexts. By investigating how different publications adapt the IAD or NAS approach and apply their theories, we provide insights for the further methodological advancement of perspectives on NbS contexts. This includes considerations of biophysical, community and multi-level, multi-sector institutional factors, and NbS effectiveness. We aim to contribute to the broader discourse around NbS by establishing a comprehensive understanding of their governance and conceptual and knowledge gaps and discuss the implications for future research needs as well as for practitioners. These findings provide a foundation for subsequent empirical case studies of NbS.

Change in food and agricultural practices at the intersection of urban and rural have implications for social cohesion and biodiversity. The work presents the case study from the Horizon Europe Project DAISY that addresses the question whether and to what extent new forms of commons governance emerging in Germany show transformative potential to strengthen both. It focuses on Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) cooperatives and similar forms of agricultural self-organization and analyzes how the spheres of transformation (personal, political, practical) strengthen place-based social cohesion and creates room for turning intangible values and attitudes associated with nature into tangible action of agrobiodiversity. Activities of new forms of commons governance in Germany can be seen as seed innovations: they support transformations that transcend the traditional urban-rural divide, where urban residents engage in intense social activities, while sensitizing themselves to farm-life and nature through self-organized forms of governance in rural areas. The role of state in both facilitating and restricting such commons practices will be discussed. The work will conceptualize plural perspectives of involved actors in the commonning processes and analyze such transformations from a transdisciplinary perspective that allows synergies between theory, practice, and policy.