Session 1. 2.

Biodiversity is a key global common, critical to maintaining wildlife and natural ecosystems, and a pillar to human survival. It is not only clear our dependence on it to fulfil our basic needs such as food, air, and water but also as the base of our society and culture. Regardless of the efforts during the last decades to slow down and stop the deterioration of biodiversity, these efforts have been proven insufficient to "bend the curve of biodiversity loss" (IPBES 2019). Global assessments have concluded that a fundamental, i.e. transformative change, is required to safeguard global commons and ecosystems. Despite its importance, the growing body of literature, and the urgent calls from the international community, it is still blurry how we could enable, accelerate or achieve cross-sectoral transformations. This contribution explores the transformative potential of spatial planning to enhance biodiversity, particularly considering that spatial planning is the place in which policies/decision-making meet, dealing with inherent uncertainty, complexity and inevitable normativity. To explore how spatial planning can contribute to transformation that enhances biodiversity, we used the transformative change framework developed by Wittmer et al. (2021) that combines different elements that make transformative change possible in a structured and integrated way. We further adapted this framework for application to spatial planning and created guidance documents to assess the transformative potential of individual and combined instruments or measures in the context of three identified ambitions for spatial planning. Through collaborative work with practitioner partners from three Arenas for Transformation in Italy, Portugal and Germany, we explore in practice the challenges and ambitions identified and discuss lessons learned, thus seeking to contribute to unlocking the transformative potential of spatial planning to enhance biodiversity.

This paper explores some of the multispecies ethical, legal, and social issues (MELSI) regarding the emergent concept and practice of "weather commoning" in the context of Japan's Moonshot Goal 8 project, which aims to develop weather modification technologies by 2050 (https://www.jst.go.jp/moonshot/en/program/goal8/).

We tentatively define weather commons as social-ecological systems that enable collective stewardship of weather-related resources and processes, by promoting cooperation and trust between actors across scales and weather commoning as the act of engaging in social practices and provisioning forms of peer governance that enable the constitution of weather commons.

In light of increasingly frequent and extreme weather events and the development of technological fixes for them (including but not limited to those of Moonshot Goal 8) the prospect of treating weather as a commons raises critical questions about governance, equity, and environmental ethics (at least!). In this panel we would like to discuss the potential benefits and risks of collective weather management, considering issues such as local/regional power dynamics, unintended ecological and social consequences, and the challenge of balancing diverse multispecies stakeholder interests. We will also touch on the legal frameworks that might be relevant for weather commoning in the context of weather modification.

By framing (in the spirit of this panel) the challenges of developing new ways of living with both weather disasters and weather modification as a 'wicked problem,' we highlight the interconnected challenges and propose a multi-layered approach to decision-making that incorporates multispecies ethical, legal, scientific/social issues (MELSI). This work contributes to the broader commons discourse by offering insights into the complexities of “managing” a resource as ubiquitous and vital as weather in an era of technological intervention and climate uncertainty.

This paper presents the results of a study using participatory mapping to collectively understand deforestation dynamics in Murehwa, a communal area approximately 90 km northeast of Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital city. The study engaged smallholder farmers in a deliberative process through participatory mapping exercises in 15 villages. For each exercise, participants collaboratively drew two maps of their village, one for 1990 and another for 2021. They depict village boundaries, land uses and the magnitude of change between the two dates. Participatory mapping served as a platform for collective thinking, with the resulting maps used to facilitate discussions. They involved comparing land use between the two maps and identifying the drivers of the observed changes. Thematic approach was used to analyse the discussions in order to come up with collectively identified drivers of land use changes. The findings show that deforestation and resulting land use changes are primarily rooted in economic depression, selling of wood, tobacco farming, veld fires, unauthorised wood exploitation, illegal selling of land, increase in gardening, agricultural expansion and population growth. These results lay a foundational step towards the co-construction of a governance framework for practising agriculture in forest-adjacent areas. Moreover, the paper shares methodological reflections and experiences intended to promote initiatives where the construction of a shared understanding facilitates sustainable land-use practices that foster natural resource conservation.

An attribute of the ‘wickedness’ of the flooding problem of Greater Jakarta is the diversity of pathways that are pursued by different stakeholders in responding to changing flooding contexts. Yet whatever pathway is followed, most solutions tend, borrowing Rittel and Webber’s wicked problem terminology, to be a ‘one-shot operation’: solutions are expected to immediately resolve the flooding problem. Nonetheless, solutions may have unanticipated negative consequences leading to new problems. Another attribute of Jakarta’s flooding problem is temporal uncertainty: it is not clear how long a given flood event would continue or when a new event could occur again. This implies that in seeking solutions ‘there is no stopping rule’ because there is no point in time that establishes that the handling of the flooding is complete. Moreover, Jakarta’s flooding problem is complicated due to emerging challenges of land subsidence and climate change.

A team of multi-disciplinary (action) researchers conducted a thought experiment in seeking solutions for the Jakarta flooding problem. The team recommends the initiation of water commons nested platforms for shaping excellent learning conditions that stimulate creativity in and discovery of new problem framings and solutions outside the policy system and, hence, are independent from existing flood policies. For existing policies and institutional mandates could hinder decision-makers and planners in learning new perspectives and in experimenting with joint partnerships with stakeholders including local communities, civil society groups, businesses, and others. Flood policy options or alternative policy measures resulting from the platform processes are eventually mainstreamed in existing flood policies.

In India, over 350 million rural poor rely on community forests, pastures, and water bodies—collectively called the commons—for their livelihoods. However, they lack formal rights to these resources, limiting their control and stewardship. Despite efforts from various actors to address issues around rural livelihoods, climate action, forest conservation, water security, and farmer distress, the lack of coordination among initiatives often undermines lasting impact. For instance, the Forest Rights Act (FRA) of 2006 aims to secure Community Forest Rights (CFR) over an estimated 100 million acres, potentially benefiting millions of forest dwellers. However, due to fragmented efforts and weak coordination, only about 5 percent of the target area has been brought under CFR.

The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the resilience provided by commons and there was an increasing realisation for the need of a unified action, especially in Odisha. Odisha, with 33.5 percent forest cover, is home to 32,562 forest-fringe villages and a large tribal population, including 13 Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups. Recognizing the importance of forest commons, various stakeholders, including government representatives, civil society organizations, academics, and media, started the initiative “Odisha Commons Exchange” to collaboratively address tenure rights over forest land. Together, they identified key barriers, such as the lack of secure tenure, insufficient convergence in planning, and limited implementation capacities among local institutions.
This collaboration resulted in a shared vision to secure CFR titles for all eligible forest-protecting communities in Odisha. The efforts led to launching of “Mo Jungle Jami Yojna” scheme on August 9, 2023 by the government of Odisha aimed at making Odisha a FRA-compliant state by processing all potential CFR claims within two years. MJJY promises land ownership, improved livelihoods, and enhanced food security for tribal and forest-dwelling communities, paving the way for sustainable forest management and strengthened community rights.