Mainstreaming biodiversity targets into sectoral policies and plans: A review from a Biodiversity Policy Integration perspective

The integration or mainstreaming of biodiversity targets in sectoral policies and plans (BPI) is considered necessary for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Scientific research on the actual performance of BPI is rather recent and fragmented. Based on a coding scheme, we systematically analyse international empirical BPI studies published in 43 international peer-reviewed journal papers. We show that, so far, overall levels of BPI are low, reflected in too abstract targets, add-on biodiversity policies not targeting the driving forces of biodiversity loss, and insufficient resources made available to pursue biodiversity recovery. Joint planning processes, the revision of policies for consistent and coherent incentives, and adaptive learning are identified as central factors for improving BPI, but considerable barriers in these areas undermine progress in BPI. A change in institutional settings seems necessary to provide more favourable conditions for BPI, including the assignment of less voluntary responsibilities for biodiversity recovery

Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making assessment. D1.7

This deliverable describes the process of developing a transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decision-making carried out in Work Package 1 (WP1) of the EU funded research project PLANET4B. The aim of the process was to help researchers and practitioners in our project become more conscious of the theoretical approaches and languages that may condition the interventions we study and the policy and additional recommendations that we make to societal actors. The starting proposition for this work was that we as PLANET4B partners come from a wide range of different disciplines and practices. Therefore, we needed a shared learning process of our different theoretical and practical lenses and languages. This is necessary to increase our potential as a project to design for transformational change in Work Packages to follow. We report on our testing of Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework (LPF) as a potential shared conceptual language for transformational change across the places, actors and theories that situate both placebased and sectoral case studies in the project. We report on the opportunities and limitations of the LPF in connecting to (i) theories of change used by research partners in their cases, as well as (ii) bridging conceptually to other “integrating analytical approaches” where PLANET4B has partner expertise; namely “intersectionality analysis”, “discourse analysis” and “reflexivity-contextualisation of interventions”. The report recognises that these integrating approaches are but a subset of possible systems analysis tools in transformative change research. The process of understanding and applying Meadows’ (1999) leverage points framework achieved some shared language and understanding across research disciplines. It helped us to compare assumptions about transformative change across our different case studies. As such, we think we achieved the “process objective” of this initial stage of PLANET4B of using a common framework to diagnose our case studies. However, case studies and experts on other integrating analytical approaches identified several limitations of the LPF. Limitations include the LPF itself being a particular theoretical systems analysis lens which in some cases could exclude practitioners through its unfamiliar concepts. Furthermore, the LPF was identified as being ‘structuralist’ or ‘mechanistic’ in the particular way we tested it in our case studies, not addressing concepts such as agency, power and decision-making. It was critiqued for not being specific to decisions about biodiversity and the related nature values.publishedVersio

Ecosystem services as the silver bullet? A systematic review of how ecosystem services assessments impact biodiversity prioritisation in policy

The concept of ecosystem services and their valuation have been used extensively across the last 20 years as a means of demonstrating the immense value of nature to policy-makers. Assessing ecosystem services and assigning an economic value to them has been thought of as the silver bullet. They were expected to bring the breakthrough for biodiversity prioritisation that is sorely needed amidst the current environmental crisis. The vast figures and values attributed to nature was thought to be capable of changing decision-makers’ rational minds to prioritise biodiversity in their agendas. However, to date, there has been limited research that explores how the focus on ecosystem services assessments (ESA) has impacted on policy. This understanding is profoundly needed as, despite much discussion of ecosystem services, biodiversity loss continues. To understand how policy impact is considered in ESA research and what factors enable it, this paper presents the findings from a systematic review of 137 research articles investigating ESA at the EU level (the EU is considered the trailblazer of environmental policy in the international policy arena). Of the studies captured in the systematic review, 48% of the assessments included monetary valuation methods, 62% involved experts or stakeholders and 72% specifically referred to EU, regional, national, or local policy documents. We found that 8% of the articles reported on policy impact, whilst only 8% assessed the potential enabling and 2% the hindering factors of their research to influence policy. It was evident that economic valuation, although widely used, does not necessarily lead to a higher reported policy impact. On the other hand, wide stakeholder involvement was highlighted as a key element to reach policy impact. In this paper we argue that limited coverage of impact is also partly because research on ecosystem services and their valuation, somewhat paradoxically, does not necessarily focus on the impact of these assessments. The findings thus demonstrate a need for further empirical research into the reasons for the insubstantial coverage of policy relevance in scientific reporting. The results also indicate the necessity for a review of ecosystem services valuations' actual effectiveness as a means of communicating scientific research to policy-makers. Furthermore, a wider discussion on complementary or alternative ways to upscale policy impacts is required, along with a better understanding of the target audience's needs

Mainstreaming biodiversity targets into sectoral policies and plans: A review from a Biodiversity Policy Integration perspective

The integration or mainstreaming of biodiversity targets in sectoral policies and plans (BPI) is considered necessary for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. Scientific research on the actual performance of BPI is rather recent and fragmented. Based on a coding scheme, we systematically analyse international empirical BPI studies published in 43 international peer-reviewed journal papers. We show that, so far, overall levels of BPI are low, reflected in too abstract targets, add-on biodiversity policies not targeting the driving forces of biodiversity loss, and insufficient resources made available to pursue biodiversity recovery. Joint planning processes, the revision of policies for consistent and coherent incentives, and adaptive learning are identified as central factors for improving BPI, but considerable barriers in these areas undermine progress in BPI. A change in institutional settings seems necessary to provide more favourable conditions for BPI, including the assignment of less voluntary responsibilities for biodiversity recovery

Ecosystem services as the silver bullet? A systematic review of how ecosystem services assessments impact biodiversity prioritisation in policy - Annex 1

This document is the Annex 1 of the journal article, Ecosystem services as the silver bullet? A systematic review of how ecosystem services assessments impact biodiversity prioritisation in policy to be published in Earth System Governance Special Issue