Systemic approaches to accelerate transformative change for biodiversity

Expected Outcome:

Proposals are expected to contribute to all of the following expected outcomes:

• policy and decision makers at relevant levels are better equipped to incorporate educational, cultural, societal and behavioural insights related to biodiversity – such as business dependencies, vulnerabilities and systemic risks – into future policy development, including through participatory and co-designed approaches;
• institutional, business, financial and economic actors have better awareness on the systemic effects of their interactions and interdependencies with ecosystems, including international trade, across value chains; the understanding and mapping of cross-actor and cross-sectoral relationships and their associated knowledge production and decision-making pathways are improved;
• transdisciplinary research communities from natural and social sciences and humanities (SSH), as well as cultural and creative sectors, among others, collaborate to improve understanding on the indirect drivers [1] behind biodiversity-harming practices, identify leverage points and test evidence-based interventions – including in relation to governance, incentives, narratives, norms and power asymmetries – with public and private sector actors to incentivise and strengthen collaborative, nature-positive practices that enable transformative change for biodiversity.

Scope:

As highlighted by IPBES, halting biodiversity loss requires transformative change [2] across mindsets, practices and the rules of the system, in ways that address the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and nature’s decline. In this context, systems thinking and behavioural science are not optional add-ons but essential bridges between ambition and impact, enabling policies and interventions to better translate intentions and actions into behavioural and structural change across all relevant actor groups.

Proposals should:

• identify and analyse implementation gaps in transformative change for biodiversity through a systems approach, including behavioural sciences, SSH, culture and the arts, building on existing knowledge across different types, including Indigenous and local. Where relevant, systemic analyses should be supported by empirical biodiversity data, including ecosystem functioning indicators, to ensure that behavioural and governance interventions are grounded in measurable ecological outcomes;
• analyse and map cross-actor and cross-sector relationships, different worldviews and knowledge systems - including Indigenous and local knowledge - power dynamics, gender roles, governance and influence pathways, including how knowledge is produced, validated and mobilised across actor groups, to identify how interactions between them drive or hinder transformative change for biodiversity;
• anticipate and analyse how indirect drivers of biodiversity loss interact with societal, economic and cultural values, affect intrinsic biodiversity values, access to and perceptions of nature and behavioural change, in order to identify key leverage points for interventions and inform strategies for transformative, nature-positive change. Proposals should address biodiversity loss, climate change and pollution as interconnected crises requiring coherent and mutually reinforcing solutions;
• design, pilot and evaluate approaches to shift governance arrangements, organisational and community routines and decision-making processes (e.g. compliance and enforcement, investment and finance decisions, cost-benefit analysis, land and sea management practices, and nature-based solutions, and communication strategies grounded in cultural and landscape values) for the benefit of communities as well as the private sector;
• develop guidance, building on existing networks, data sets, digital platforms and tools (including for monitoring), to support the adaptation, replication and scaling of the proposed approaches across sectors and regions. Where relevant, this may include the use, development and/or synthesis of indicators, models, data and tools to better capture nature restoration’s contribution to systemic risks reduction, across ecosystems;
• optimise data usage, including standardised data formats widely adopted across sectors, for integrating biodiversity objectives with socio-economic outcomes, increase consistency and ease data interpretation and exchange among sectors and their integration into sectoral (digital) decision-support and management tools. Where relevant, support tools like natural capital accounting and nature credit frameworks with clear metrics for additionality and permanence, or information collected from different stakeholders and participatory processes should be incorporated;
• support stakeholders (e.g. in agriculture, fisheries and forestry, among others) in aligning their land/sea management practices, business models and broader operations and trade interactions with pathways to transformative change by addressing the challenges they face (e.g. meeting EU biodiversity targets and objectives, including corporate sustainability and due diligence reporting) and develop case studies. These should provide solutions that prioritise biodiversity and ecological objectives while considering socio-economic realities, promoting sustainable management, policy compliance, economic viability, community resilience and enhancing Europe’s long-term competitiveness. Participatory and co-design approaches that actively involve stakeholders in identifying challenges, designing solutions, and validating outcomes should be included.

Proposals should build on and contribute to the findings of IPBES [3] . Projects should build on clustering activities with Horizon Europe projects and other initiatives working in this field, through the dedication of appropriate resources. Funded projects should cover one or more ecosystems, including marine, coastal, freshwater and/or terrestrial. Proposals must apply a multi-actor approach and are encouraged to integrate international cooperation and/or participation of outermost regions. This topic requires the effective contribution from the SSH disciplines and the involvement of SSH experts, institutions as well as the inclusion of relevant SSH expertise, in order to produce meaningful and significant effects enhancing the societal impact of the related research activities. Proposals may include financial support to third parties (FSTP) to facilitate active and supportive involvement of actors, experts and institutions. A maximum of 15% of the EU proposed budget should be allocated to this purpose. In order to increase synergies and the impact of the projects, all proposals selected for funding should form a cluster and are expected to participate in common networking and joint activities, including with projects from other calls where deemed appropriate. These activities should be included in a dedicated work package, having sufficient budget allocated to it. These activities may include:

• a common dissemination and communication strategy;
• common Data Management Strategy and Common Policy Strategy (including joint policy briefs);
• thematic workshops/trainings/working groups on issues of common interest (e.g. data management and exchange);
• close cooperation with the EC Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity (KCBD) [4] and its Science Service, including participating in answering science to policy requests.

[1] The IPBES Transformative Change Assessment, Summary for Policymakers lists the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss and natures decline as; Demographic and sociocultural; Economic and technological; Institutions and governance; Conflicts and epidemics (Figure SMP 1: https://zenodo.org/records/17099400). [2] The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) defines transformative change as a fundamental, system-wide reorganization across technological, economic, and social factors, including paradig