Session 1. 7. A.

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.