Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons: Biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience

Wittmer, Heidi et al. Research Report Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons: Biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience UFZ-Bericht, No. 3/2021 Provided in Cooperation with: Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) Suggested Citation: Wittmer, Heidi et al. (2021) : Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons: Biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience, UFZ-Bericht, No. 3/2021, Helmholtz-Zentrum für Umweltforschung (UFZ), Leipzig, https://doi.org/10.57699/7s83-7z35 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/260403 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ Centre for Environmental Research GRÜNAU 2020 – Ergebnisse der Bewohnerbefragung UFZ Report 3|2021 Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Department of Environmental Politics Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons – biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience www.ufz.de/global-commons 1 Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons — biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience Heidi Wittmer1, Augustin BergHöfer1, Leonie Büttner1, rucHirA cHAkrABArty1, JoHAnnes förster1, sABinA kHAn1, cLAudiA könig2, gescHe krAuse2, dAvid kreuer1, kArLA e. LocHer-krAuse1, tHAis moreno soAres1, mArceLA muñoz escoBAr1, mALte neumAnn1, isABeL renner1, JuLiAn rode1, immA scHnieWind1, dorotHeA scHWArzer1, uLrike tröger1, yves zinngreBe1, sALinA spiering1 1Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany 2Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research Am Handelshafen 12, 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany A project implemented and a publication produced with the support of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH 2 3 Imprint Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Department of Environmental Politics in cooperation with the Department of Conservation Biology & Social-Ecological Systems and the Alfred-Wegener-Institute (AWI) Permoserstraße 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany © 2021, Heidi Wittmer et al., UPOL, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ This publication may be reproduced in whole or in part and in any form for educational or non-profit services without special permission from the copyright holder, provided acknowledgement of the source is made. An online version of this work is published at https://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=36795 under a Creative Commons Open Access license CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 which permits re-use, distribution and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes providing appropriate credit to the original work is given. You may not distribute derivative works without permission. To view a copy of this license, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0 No use of this publication may be made for resale or any other commercial purpose whatsoever without prior permission in writing from the authors. All versions of this work may contain content reproduced under license from third parties. Permission to reproduce this third-party content must be obtained from these third-parties directly. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the authors concerning the legal status of any country, territory or city or its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication was developed within the framework of the project “Transformative change for the protection of global commons”. A project implemented and a publication produced with the support of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH Citation Wittmer, H. Berghöfer, A., Büttner L., Chakrabarty, R., Förster, J., Khan, S., König, C., Krause, G., Kreuer, D., Locher-Krause, K., Moreno Soares, T., Muñoz Escobar, M., Neumann, M., Renner, I., Rode, J., Schniewind, I., Schwarzer, D., Tröger, U., Zinngrebe, Y., Spiering, S. (2021). Transformative change for a sustainable management of global commons — biodiversity, forests and the ocean. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessment reports and project experience. UFZ-Report 2021/3, DOI: https://doi.org/10.57699/7s83-7z35 Authors Heidi Wittmer, Augustin Berghöfer, Leonie Büttner, Ruchira Chakrabarty, Johannes Förster, Sabina Khan, Claudia König, Gesche Krause, David Kreuer, Karla E. Locher-Krause, Thais Moreno Soares, Marcela Muñoz Escobar, Malte Neumann, Isabel Renner, Julian Rode, Imma Schniewind, Dorothea Schwarzer, Ulrike Tröger, Yves Zinngrebe, Salina Spiering Contact Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research GmbH – UFZ, Permoserstr. 15, 04318 Leipzig, Germany [email protected] https://www.ufz.de/global-commons Design and Layout F&U confirm, Ogarit Uhlmann Picture credits stock.adobe.com, pixabay.com, cover illustration: Ogarit Uhlmann Availability A PDF of this publication is available at: https://www.ufz.de/index.php?de=36795, ISSN 0948-9452 https://doi.org/10.57699/7s83-7z35 © 2021 by the authors. Submitted for possible open access publication under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 4 Acknowledgements The authors would like to express their gratitude for all the support received in writing this report. The project was implemented and the publication was produced with the support of the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH. We gratefully acknowledge this research funding support. Moreover, we very much enjoyed and benefitted from discussions with mixed teams from BMZ and GIZ on the structure and focus of the study. A special thanks goes to Christine Wolf (GIZ), Silke Spohn (GIZ) and Rudolf Huber (BMZ). We also thank all participants from DIE (German Development Institute), GIZ, KfW (German Development Bank), and ZMT (Leibniz Centre for Tropical Marine Research), who attended the two expert workshops “Transformative change for the sustainable management of global commons. Recommendations for international cooperation based on a review of global assessments and project experience“ in January and March 2021 and provided helpful feedback: Nina Bisom (GIZ), Jan Kleine Büning (GIZ), Herbert Christ (GIZ), Andreas Gettkant (GIZ), Marion Glaser (ZMT), Katharina Gübel (BMZ) Anna-Katharina Hornidge (DIE), Lena Katzmarski (GIZ), Mechthild Kronen (GIZ), Barbara Lang (GIZ), Ina Lehmann (DIE), Claudia Mayer (GIZ), Karen Möhring (KfW), Ingrid Prem (GIZ), Kirsten Probst (GIZ), Jean Carlo Rodgriuez (DIE), Anke Schneider (GIZ), Susanne Wallenöffer (GIZ), Martin Zimmer (ZMT). We would also like to thank our interview partners for their cooperation and insights on the projects: Raphael Linzatti (GIZ), Niklas Wagner (GIZ), Klaus Köhnlein (KfW), Paul Scholte (GIZ), Djafarou Tiomoko (GIZ), Daniele Fouth Obang (GIZ), Holger Treidel (GIZ), Uwe Cusnick, Jens Mackensen (KfW), Ravindra Singh (GIZ), Mechthild Kronen (GIZ), Vanessa Hartmann (GIZ), Marco Hartmann (GIZ), Sebastian Ferse (ZMT). We would wish to acknowledge the constructive review of Chapter 3 and Chapter 7 provided by Niko Schäpke and Jennifer Hauck. Not least, we thank our colleagues at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research – UFZ Leipzig for supporting our work with specific expertise, peer reviews and constructive comments. Namely, Bernd Hansjürgens, Christoph SchröterSchlaack, Johannes Schiller, Danny Otto, and Christine Polzin. Furthermore, we are very grateful to Anne Wessner, who did a great job in copy-editing the report as well as Paula Krolick for managing the references and bibliography database. We thank Ogarit Uhlmann from F&U confirm for the layout and creative design of the study, as well as her impressive patience and flexibility. We are immensely thankful for all of these contributions, all remaining errors are our responsibility. The views expressed are those of the authors and do reflect the official position of the institutions involved. 5 Table of Contents List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 9 Executive Summary ....................................................................................... 11 1 Introduction ................................................................................................ 13 2 Approach and methods..................................................................... 16 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework ................... 18 3.1 Transformative change – a brief overview of the literature ....................... 18 3.2 Building blocks for a conceptual framework on transformative change ... 20 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges ................................................................. 32 4.1 Biodiversity ......................................................................................................... 32 4.1.1 Stocktaking: State of biodiversity ............................................................................... 33 4.1.2 Putting biodiversity at the core of development agendas – three main challenges ...... 35 4.1.3 Summary ...............................................................................................................37 4.2 Forests ................................................................................................................ 37 4.2.1 Stocktaking: State of natural forests ........................................................................ 38 4.2.2 Challenges for the sustainable management of forests ........................................ 39 4.2.3 Summary .............................................................................................................. 41 4.3 The Ocean ........................................................................................................... 41 4.3.1 Stocktaking: State of the ocean ............................................................................... 41 4.3.2 Challenges for the sustainable development of the ocean ....................................... 45 4.3.3 Summary ............................................................................................................. 46 4.4 The urgency of rescuing the global commons ............................................ 47 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis .................................. 51 5.1 Synopsis of main recommendations for biodiversity .................................... 51 5.2 Synopsis of the main recommendations for forests .................................... 56 5.3 Synopsis of the main recommendations for the ocean .............................. 60 5.4 Global commons: from tragedy to opportunity? ........................................ 65 6 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations ......... 69 6.1 Analysing and complementing biodiversity-related recommendations ..... 69 6.1.1 Assessing transformative potential and identifying gaps ............................................ 69 6.1.2 Options to increase transformative potential ............................................................. 72 6.2 Analysing and complementing forest-related recommendations ............... 82 6.2.1 Assessing transformative potential and identifying gaps ............................................ 82 6.2.2 Options to increase transformative potential ............................................................ 83 6.3 Analysing and complementing ocean-related recommendations .............. 89 6.3.1 Assessing transformative potential and identifying gaps ........................................... 89 6.3.2 Options to increase transformative potential: Does the ocean also need transformative change? .................................................................................................. 91 6.4 Synopsis of recommendations for minimising pandemic risks .................. 99 6.5 How can the transformative potential be enhanced and what gaps remain? ........................................................................................... 101 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change .......................................................................... 103 7.1 Projects analysed ............................................................................................... 103 7.1.1 Projects with UFZ involvement ................................................................................ 103 7.1.2 Projects implemented by GIZ/KfW ............................................................................ 104 7.1.3 Additional marine conservation projects ................................................................... 106 7.2 Findings from projects ...................................................................................... 107 8 Main findings and implications ................................................. 115 8.1 Causes of degradation and ambitions for sustainably managing global commons ............................................................ 115 8.2 Increasing the transformative potential of measures ................................. 118 9 (Policy) Recommendations for enabling sustainability transformation of global commons ......... 130 9.1 Overarching topics and general recommendations (all three roles) ........... 132 9.2 Recommendations for German policies and Germany’s role in the EU .... 135 9.3 Recommendations for Germany’s role in international cooperation ... 137 9.4 Recommendations for German Development Cooperation ......................... 140 References .................................................................................................................... 143 Table of Contents 7 Table of Figures Figure 1: Bending the curve ......................................................................................... 13 Figure 2: Overview of the study’s key questions and methodological approaches ...............17 Figure 3: Building blocks for the framework on transformative change. Note: The animal icons are used within the report to indicate where we address the respective building block ............... 21 Figure 4: Dynamics of societal transitions as iterative processes of build-up and breakdown over a period of decades ................................................................................................. 25 Figure 5: Transformative change framework ...................................................................... 31 Figure 6: Species extinction since 1500 for vertebrate groups. ............................................ 33 Figure 7: Estimates of the biomass mammals on Earth, split between humans, domesticated mammals and wild mammals .............................................................................................. 34 Figure 8: The interactions between climate change, land use and biodiversity ....................... 36 Figure 9: Annual rate of global forest expansion and deforestation ........................................ 38 Figure 10: Global trends in the state of world´s marine fish stocks, 1974–2017 ................... 42 Figure 11: World Capture Fisheries and Aquaculture Production ........................................... 42 Figure 12: Sources of ocean pollution ................................................................................ 43 Figure 13: Patchwork of sectoral and regional organisations in the areas beyond national jurisdiction ......................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 14: Indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss (left side) are causing declines in biodiversity/nature (right side) ........................................................................................... 47 Figure 15: Global commons addressed by this report ......................................................... 48 Figure 16: Density distribution of global industrial fishing effort, (A) vessels flagged to higherincome countries and (B) vessels flagged to lower-income countries .................................... 92 Figure 17: Percentage of patents with international protection associated with marine genetic resources registered over the period 1988–2017 .................................................................. 93 Figure 18: Barriers to marshalling adequate funding of the Sustainable Ocean Economy (SOE) .. 96 Figure 19: Conclusions of project analyses based on the first four building blocks of the framework on transformative change .................................................................................. 113 Figure 20: Ambitions that address cross-cutting challenges and guide transformative change ... 117 Figure 21: Conclusions based on the first four building blocks of the framework .................. 125 Figure 22: Illustration how building blocks can inspire combinations of measures to enhance transformative change, using the example of agri-food systems .......................................... 129 Figure 23: Building on ambitions to derive measures in different roles .................................. 131 14 The IPBES Global Assessment (GA 2019) very explicitly calls for transformative change as summarised in Chan et al. (2020). It speaks of ‘sustainability pathways’ and provides first ideas on how these could be pursued: levers and leverage points (GA Chapter 5; see Box 1) and requirements for transformative governance (GA Chapter 6). These ideas will also be considered in this report in more detail (see Chapter 3). Box 1: Leverage points and levers for sustainability pathways Based on the IPBES Global Assessment (2019), Chan et al. (2020) define eight priority ‘leverage points’ which describe principal areas for needed change: (1) Visions of a good life, (2) Total consumption and waste, (3) Latent values of responsibility, (4) Inequalities, (5) Justice and inclusion in conservation, (6) Externalities from trade and other telecouplings, (7) Responsible technology, innovation and investment, and (8) Education and knowledge generation and sharing. They also define a set of five policy levers for bringing about such change: (A) Incentives and capacity building, (B) Coordination across sectors and jurisdictions, (C) Pre-emptive action, (D) Adaptive decision-making and (E) Environmental law and implementation. Such categories can be specified in many different ways and at different levels. 1 Introduction While there seems to be agreement on the need for transformative change, the ideas outlined in the IPBES Global Assessment are only first pointers for how to make this happen. Further contributions to this question can be expected from Chapter 5 of the ongoing IPBES Methodological Assessment on the values of nature, which deals with ‘transformation to just and sustainable futures’, and from a future IPBES assessment specifically dedicated to the topic of transformative change. While economic transformations (e.g. in post-Soviet countries) and socio-technical transitions (e.g. towards renewable energy) have been well studied and understood, the called-for socio-ecological transformation at global scale is largely uncharted territory. The ‘commons’ character underlines the interconnectedness of regional environments within a global biosphere, and of regional resource use within a globalising economy. National responses can contribute, but rarely by themselves change global system conditions. The maintenance and integrity of global commons will rely on international cooperation and on collective choices (Brousseau et al. 2012). For the next ten-year Global Biodiversity Framework of the CBD further efforts are urgently needed to promote transformative change. As one example for such efforts, in mid-2020, the European Commission organised a workshop, with support from the ‘EKLIPSE science-policy mechanism on biodiversity and ecosystem services’, to help policy makers identify how the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework can better encourage transformative change (Bulkeley et al. 2020). The present study builds upon and extends this effort by identifying options on how to increase the transformative potential of international and of development cooperation programmes, projects, negotiations and initiatives. This will be done (i) by examining conclusions and recommendations from global assessments and reports on the state of nature and the environment, and (ii) by analysing selected international cooperation projects for biodiversity, forests and the marine realm with regard to their transformative potential. This study aims at answering the following questions: • What does transformative change have to entail in order to lead to sustainable management of global commons? • How can transformative change towards sustainability be facilitated/enhanced? • How can transformative change be supported at the international level – including the 15th Conference of the Parties of the International Convention on Biodiversity (CBD COP 15) and other high-level events such as UNFCCC2, G7, G20 – and at the level of development cooperation? 2United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 15 The study is structured as follows: • Chapter 2 briefly describes the methodology applied. • In Chapter 3, a conceptual framework is developed based on a synthesis of literature on transformative change, and on how transformative change can be encouraged and governed. • In Chapter 4, main challenges in the fields of biodiversity, forests, and marine/coastal ecosystems are identified as outlined in scientific global assessments. While these fields are largely overlapping, they represent distinct policy and science communities. • Chapter 5 summarises the recommendations of international global assessments on each of these fields (biodiversity, forests and the ocean). • In Chapter 6, we examine how ‘transformative’ current recommendations are, by applying the developed framework, identifying gaps and filling some of these gaps with complementing recommendations from other global reports. • Chapter 7 takes a different perspective and adds insights from on-the-ground experiences arising from international development projects. • Chapter 8 presents the main findings by synthesising results across the three commons and by combining the top-down perspective of global assessments with the bottom-up experiences of the projects. • The study closes with recommendations on how transformative change can be encouraged in international collaboration and development cooperation (Chapter 9). 1 Introduction 16 2 Approach and methods To answer the main research questions, we applied several qualitative approaches in triangulation (Flick 2004): qualitative content analysis, semi-structured interviews, and expert workshops. In this section, we outline the methodological steps we took; for more details see Appendix 1. Figure 2 illustrates the overall process. In the first step, we analysed how transformative change is conceptualised in current literature, starting with the IPBES Global Assessment. As their conceptualisation remains rather abstract, we complemented it by reviewing further scholarly literature on transformative change, including the seminal texts by Loorbach et al. (2017), Scoones et al. (2019), and Bulkeley et al. (2020). At the same time, we screened and then conducted a qualitative content analysis of selected international global assessment reports on biodiversity, forests, and the ocean. Out of this twofold review activity, we developed a conceptual framework to bring together, in a structured way, the elements that make transformative change possible (see Chapter 3). The formulation of a “building blocks’’ framework is our conceptual answer to the challenge of operationalising transformative change. This framework helps us address the research question on how transformative change can be encouraged by policy. In the second step, we used our conceptual framework to analyse elements of transformative change within the global assessment reports, the question being how transformative change can be encouraged. We first extracted the main challenges identified across the different assessment reports for each of the three global commons addressed in this study (Chapter 4), and then summarised the recommendations presented or implied in these reports to address the selected challenges (Chapter 5). In a third step, we analysed to what extent these recommendations are transformative by using our conceptual framework to take stock of elements conducive to transformative change, identify gaps in the recommendations, and systematically search for suggestions to fill these gaps. In order to find such gap-filling suggestions, we relied on studies and reports on global challenges that were not negotiated within intergovernmental platforms. This literature is more targeted at specific topics. A short description of the reports used for each of the three global commons can be found at the beginning of the respective sections in Chapter 6. Global assessments, no matter whether negotiated within intergovernmental platforms or not, necessarily provide general – and therefore rather abstract – conclusions and a top-down perspective. We complement this with a bottom-up perspective in order to better understand operating spaces and options for enhancing transformative potentials in project design and implementation. Thus, the fourth step of our analysis used the conceptual framework to reflect on a set of past and ongoing research and cooperation projects in terms of how they have (or could have) contributed to transformative change. We drew on two sets of projects: a set of six projects mainly funded by the International Climate Initiative (IKI) in which the authors of this study were personally involved as partners, and a set of nine BMZ3-funded projects, implemented by GIZ4 and/or KfW5. All these projects aimed at conserving or improving the state of biodiversity, natural forests, and the ocean. We adapted the conceptual framework by formulating specific, open-ended questions about each building block. The next methodological step for analysing the projects was twofold: for the first set of projects the respective authors of this study answered the questions analysing their project resulting in an Excel file. For the second set of projects these lists of questions (see Appendix 13) were sent to project members and we subsequently discussed their responses in semi-structured interviews with them. Our summaries of these conversations were sent back to each participant respectively for cross-checking. The lessons learned across projects are presented in Chapter 7. In the fifth and final step, the analytical framework facilitated deriving recommendations for (1) international policy design and implementation as well as (2) for development cooperation. These draft recommendations were discussed in two virtual expert workshops with development cooperation practitioners in January (biodiversity and forests) and March 2021 (marine and coastal ecosystems). Based on workshop discussions we refined the recommendations, which are presented in Chapter 9. 3Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development, BMZ 4German Corporation for International Cooperation GmbH, GIZ 5German Development Bank, KfW 17 Figure 2: Overview of the study’s key questions and methodological approaches METHODOLOGICAL STEPS MAIN QUESTIONS Analysis of global assessment reports STEP 2 Analysing and increasing transformative potential Analysis of targeted global reports addressing gaps >> Chapter 6 How transformative are the recommendations? How can identified gaps be filled and inconsistencies resolved? Analysis of projects Semi-structured interviews >> Chapter 7 What can be learned from practice? How do projects reflect elements of transformative change? How can projects be designed to be more oriented towards transformative change? Deriving recommendations Expert workshops >> Chapters 8 and 9 What recommendations for international collaboration and development cooperation can be derived for biodiversity, forests and the ocean? STEP 3 STEP 4 STEP 5 >> Chapter 3 Synthesis of transformative change literature & development of conceptual framework Applying the conceptual framework 17 STEP 1 STEP 2.1 What are the main challenges for sustainable management? >> Chapters 4 STEP 2.2 What are recommendations for transformative change? >> Chapters 5 18 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework There are widespread indications that current sustainability efforts are insufficient to achieve the ambitious international agenda of the SDGs and that prevailing development trajectories continue to lead in the wrong direction. According to the 2019 SDG progress report chart (UN Stats 2019), only one of 41 targets are likely to be met at global scale by 2030. This underscores the increasing calls for ‘transformation to sustainability’. Biodiversity plays a crucial role for many, if not all, of the SDGs (Blicharska et al. 2019). What are adequate responses to the growing tensions and socio-economic impacts that result from over-using and degrading the biosphere? Pursuing incremental adaptation, optimisation and progress towards sustainability neglects the speed and scale of current losses of our bio-physical life support systems. Within the coming decades, large-scale and disruptive socio-ecological changes could likely happen too fast for societies to cope with, even within current regimes and paradigms of adaptation. Therefore, transformations – i.e. fundamental or radical shifts – are required in the way societies treat this planet (Haberl et al. 2011). And the more such shifts are delayed, the higher the risks and damages for future generations. The notion of ‘transformation’ is used differently in politics and in science (Blythe et al. 2018). In politics, it is a wake-up call for bolder multilateral action. In science, different schools of thought elaborate conceptual underpinnings for what transformation to sustainability actually entails: What needs to be transformed? And into what? How fast? Who should do it? And how? Yet, ambiguities in the definition and pursuit of transformative change are widespread (O’Brien et al. 2012, Feola 2015, Blythe et al. 2018 – see below). In the following, we first summarise key literature regarding transformative change to sustainability and then propose a simple framework to guide the empirical analysis in this report, focusing on the global commons. Synthesis of transformative change literature & development of conceptual framework 3.1 Transformative change – a brief overview of the literature Transformation to sustainability has been studied from different viewpoints. It entails a normative dimension which is embodied in the SDGs: their fulfilment constitutes the desired alternative future state or trajectory (i.e. ‘System B’). It also entails a dynamic or change dimension which refers to the nature of the metamorphosis itself (i.e. the shift from the current ‘System A’ to ‘System B’). These dimensions can only be jointly understood and pursued. STEP 1 19 Several perspectives describe ‘main ingredients’ of transformation processes. Scoones et al. (2019) review the literature and identify three basic perspectives on transformation: structural, systemic and enabling approaches. Structural perspectives typically describe and analyse transformations ex-post, focussing on perceived changes in the fundamental structures of politics, economy and society. Examples include the shift from hunter-gatherers to agricultural production, or the age of industrialisation. Systemic perspectives on transformation are rooted in socio-ecological and socio-technical systems thinking. These focus on system elements, levels, and interactions, with interests in tracing and explaining issues such as resilience or innovation; a main aim is to understand how the system functions and reacts. A typical example is changing energy supply from fossil fuels to renewables. In turn, enabling perspectives argue that change must emerge from below through open spaces and democratic empowerment of civil society movements and grassroots activity. Scoones et al. (2020) argue that these perspectives are usually complementary and that in many, if not most settings, structural changes, systemic innovation, and local emancipation are needed for transformation towards sustainability. Many scholars conceive transformation to sustainability as a change-of-path, a fundamental – as opposed to a minor or incremental – change (Feola 2015). Such large-scale change cannot be planned and implemented in one piece, but will rather involve a number of steps that, in retrospect, can be considered as fundamental. Others argue for a “strategy of incremental change with a transformative agenda, where a normative focus on sustainability transformations helps to orient incremental efforts (such as policy change) within a broader narrative of transformative change” (Patterson et al. 2017: 4, emphasis ours). This thinking is captured in the notions of “progressive incremental” change (Levin et al. 2012), “directed incrementalism” (Grunwald 2007), or “radical incrementalism” (Göpel 2016). In this sense, narratives and visions provide an important role as a compass for what a transformed system, and thus a desirable future, would look like. At the same time, the exact outcomes of fundamental change cannot be anticipated and there will be many different options to achieve the desired (i.e. more sustainable) outcomes. This highlights the importance of ensuring that transformations are democratically negotiated and debated within wider society. Loorbach et al. (2017) conceive transformation as a sequence of phases needed for (i) establishing new ways of doing things, and for (ii) phasing out the “old” and unsustainable system. Doing the first without doing the second will not bring about the desired fundamental change. This is due to the fact that the existing system is usually well-established and self-reinforcing, locked-in by path dependencies. For example, introducing electric vehicles or improving public transport will by itself not lead to phasing out a transport system where most people drive private cars that run on fossil fuels. However, one must consider that, due to its radically different outcomes, inducing transformation involves substantially higher short-term risks or side effects (e.g. on disadvantaged groups or specific economic sectors), in comparison to an adaptive or reactive mode of governance: When trying to change path, more things can go wrong accidentally. Also, transformation requires proactive (rather than responsive) investments and it should aim for a lasting change in dominant power relations by favouring equity, fairness, and justice (Chaffin et al. 2017). Here, normative and analytical dimensions are hard to separate. A strategy for change requires a comprehensive understanding of the elements of the system that would need to be changed. Recently, scholars have been using the notions of leverage points and levers, where leverage points are the places “where to intervene to change social-ecological systems” (Chan et al. 2020: 695). Levers are governance approaches and interventions as the means to achieve the changes. Abson et al. (2017) build on Meadows’ (1999) set of leverage points and emphasise the need to engage with the ‘deep’, or ultimate, causes of unsustainability (e.g. values, goals and worldviews) and to consider interventions that address these underlying causes. Typical examples are attempts to establish new narratives in the societal and political debate (e.g. away from a growth paradigm) or to change the educational system that shapes awareness and attitudes at an early age. In the aim to bring this literature closer to biodiversity decision-making, especially within the post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), Bulkeley et al. (2020) propose principles for deriving a transformative biodiversity agenda (see Box 2 for a summary). 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework 20 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework Box 2: Principles for a transformative biodiversity agenda (Bulkeley et al. 2020) Bulkeley et al. (2020) distil from the literature six principles on how to encourage the potential for transformative change in strategic policy agendas, in particular the global biodiversity framework. The six principles highlight complementary avenues for encouraging far-reaching and thus potentially transformative change towards sustainability. Enhancing inclusive and deliberative arenas allows for agency and buy-in, focusing on co-benefits facilitates building alliances across different sectors, expanding action arenas and multiple paths broaden the impact and have the potential to become mutually reinforcing. Addressing root causes and anticipating resistance point to the fact that indirect drivers and vested interests cannot be ignored. Principles: 1. Address Root Causes: Transformative change towards sustainability can only be achieved if the root causes and underlying/indirect drivers of the problem in question are addressed. 2. Take Multiple Paths: Multiple [concurrent] efforts will be required, through diverse development pathways that are compatible with biodiversity goals. 3. Expand Action Arena: Transformative change requires opening up traditional action arenas, which need to be extended to encompass multiple areas of the economy and society to achieve (diverse) goals for biodiversity. 4. Realise Diverse Co-Benefits: Focusing on “co-benefits” biodiversity conservation entails for other societal goals, offers opportunities to encourage transformative change. 5. Design Deliberative & Inclusive Processes: Transformative change requires space for deliberation, inclusion of diverse knowledge types, views and values, as well as forms of co-production. 6. Adopt Proactive Approach to Resistance: Resistance, likely to come from powerful societal actors with vested interests in the status quo, needs to be anticipated to pave the way for transformative change. The principles can be used both ways: to identify and develop actions that enhance transformative change potential but also to analyse which aspects of transformative change are already being addressed and which ones are not. This cursory overview indicates that social and sustainability sciences have taken several perspectives and analysed a broad set of different aspects in connection with the term transformation. 3.2 Building blocks for a conceptual framework on transformative change The objective of this report is to inform international cooperation by structuring and interpreting the recommendations on how to achieve sustainable management of global commons, both from scientific assessment reports as well as based on the experiences in individual programmes or projects. To this end, the authors of this report were looking for a conceptual framework which contains the main elements and characteristics of transformative change from the scientific debate in a consistent and applicable manner. The reviewed literature did not, however, include a framework that serves the purposes of balancing breadth, relevance and parsimony. Therefore, the authors draw on some of the above and further sources to pro- 21 Figure 3: Building blocks for the framework on transformative change. Note: The animal icons are used within the report to indicate where we address the respective building block. 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework pose a framework with five building blocks for transformation to sustainability. This framework is presented here and summarised in Figure 3. In essence, we argue that intended transformative interventions (Figure 3, yellow boxes) can best encourage transformation to sustainability if they are embedded within a more comprehensive framing of transformative change (Figure 3, blue boxes): • oriented by a compelling transformative vision, • addressing knowledge on systemic change and on how to deal with the uncertainties involved, • with a balanced navigation of the dynamics inherent in changing development pathways, • and with emancipated agency providing room for inclusive deliberation. We therefore have four substantial additional building blocks which go along with any concrete action or intervention geared towards transformation. Transformative governance: actors and interventions A broad range of situation-specific interventions. Their impact / success depends on an adequate combination of: Transformative VISION What futures do we want? Transformative KNOWLEDGE What needs to be known for changing the system? Transformation DYNAMICS How to navigate, nudge and nurture system change? EMANCIPATION and AGENCY How can spaces be created for deliberating just transformations? 1 Relevant actors (who?) Instruments (what?) Governance modes (how?) 2 3 4 5 21 22 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework Block 1: Transformative Vision: What future(s) do we want? A transformative vision provides ideas for the future that makes the desired state tangible or at least imaginable and thus provides i) orientation and ii) inspiration and motivation to people to actually work towards this future. In terms of system change it provides answers to the big questions of how the new system will be different from the current. How do we create a safe and just space for humanity on this planet (Hajer et al. 2015)? How can we transform our development trajectories in a way that safeguards the biosphere as our “natural capital” (Neumeyer and Dietz 2009)? The SDGs are signposts of the desired state of environmental, social, and economic conditions. Yet, modern development narratives do not convincingly cope with the fact that the SDGs will unlikely be met (UN Stats 2021): blind faith in the ‘invisible hand’ of the market, in a responsible private sector, or in (multilateral) geo-strategic policy is unwarranted to drive the ‘big leap’ towards the SDGs at global scale. Intergovernmental efforts have seen mixed outcomes, and national governments have preferred to try steering change towards selected SDGs in a top-down manner rather than mobilising new agents of change such as businesses, cities and civil society (Hajer et al. 2015). At a larger scale and with respect to global commons narratives of liberalism (Harari 2018) and of neoliberalism (Monbiot 2016) are increasingly seen as intellectually obsolete. The terms of sustainability and sustainable development, which have techno-scientific and management connotations (Salmivaara and Kibler 2020), have also lost some of their original appeal over the nitty-gritty of implementation, indicators and monitoring. The core ideas of sustainability have become diluted. Many actors claim to contribute to sustainability or to be sustainable, but few understand the implications of the SDGs being inseparable, and given there are 17 goals and 5 principles this is indeed a challenging task. Therefore, new, mobilising narratives are needed. They will have to build on a clear critique of prevailing yet outdated development and growth paradigms, and recognise the politics of global sustainability issues (Patterson et al. 2017). A new narrative will also have to make explicit those values that favour sustainable societal welfare (and those values which do not), and it will have to offer a new ‘way out’ (Monbiot 2019). Such a narrative would combine the ‘big picture’ of what goes wrong with answers that provide orientation and inspire change. While some objectives might be predefined and easy to specify, others and the trade-offs they entail might only appear along the transformation process. Hence, developing a transformative vision means specifying a feasible scenario that combines the different development targets for the specific context. The term ‘transformation’ itself does not tell this story. While it has gained traction in various problem domains (e.g. energy, mobility), it does not by itself offer the kind of visionary answers needed. Transformation as a concept describes the degree of change, but not necessarily its trajectory (Pelling et al. 2015). In fact, one of the risks of ‘transformation’ is that its vaguely positive and solution-oriented connotation can be used for all kinds of ideas and interests (Blythe et al. 2018); it could become the next buzzword that loses traction over time. For example, a ‘radical economic transformation’ – as had been propagated in South Africa – does not necessarily pursue more sustainable and equitable economic futures (Desai et al. 2018). Transformative visions will require a step back so as to consider a society’s entire socio-ecological system and its international linkages. They have to address the root causes of current unsustainability (Bulkeley et al. 2020). The role of economic growth for human well-being needs to be revisited, without dogmatism. Natural capital is vastly more important than solely as input to production processes. And: natural capital can only be substituted by other capitals to very limited degrees – and only for those who can afford it. The planetary boundaries are far closer to the ‘poor’ than to the ‘rich’. Transformative visions will also face resistance from those who benefit from current setups and expect to lose out in the new narrative. Therefore, both content and genesis of a new vision will have to be normatively legitimised, e.g. by emphasising common ground (content) and by facilitating debate (genesis). To pre-empt denial of inconvenient truths, the narrative should refrain from claims to superior knowledge (Chilisa 2017). This narrative should identify a common problem (‘formerly good ideas are not so anymore because the world has changed – we are trapped by old convictions in unhealthy pathways’), and a common emancipation story towards alternative futures (‘we actually know enough to find ways out of the dilemma, and now is a good moment to begin this voyage’) (Wittmayer et al. 2019, Kothari and Joy 2017). 23 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework Overall sustainability conditions should be embraced and taken seriously as ‘bottom line’ and guidance for efforts aimed at changing the system. They should include at least: respect of planetary boundaries, provision of living wages or incomes, concern for future generations, and life in dignity. Such principles translate into a vision of the ‘future as a commons’ which respects the diversity of human life itself: “What one needs is not a common future, but the future as a commons. A commons is the plurality of life worlds to which all citizens have access. It is not merely the availability of nature as being, but of alternative imaginations, skills that survival in the future might require.” Visvanathan 1991: 383) Block 2: Transformative Knowledge: What needs to be known for changing the system? The second building block of the framework connects visions to actions and indicates a continuous learning process. This is due to the very nature of transformative change, where: i) uncertainty is inherent in each transformative vision since it is not a fixed goal, but a beacon that guides a plurality of possible interventions; ii) knowledge needs may change with time; iii) knowledge gaps are progressively filled with scientific advancement; iv) the process becomes more inclusive. An essential part of the transformative knowledge process is identifying and understanding elements of the system with the potential to solve the respective sustainability problem, including: the actors, their functions, the connections between them, available knowledge and knowledge needs on how practises can change. It is important to keep in mind that the bigger the system, the more complex it becomes due to the many possible relationships and levels of interaction. To understand the levels within a system, the notion of a multi-level perspective is useful, with different degrees of knowledge precision at different systemic levels (Patterson et al. 2015). Importantly, transformative knowledge in our understanding goes beyond scientific or technical knowledge (despite using metaphors of systems analysis), and includes practical, traditional, and indigenous perspectives. Locating entry points within a system for stimulating transformation (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010) then becomes especially important. What aspects of the system are to be addressed first and, therefore, what knowledge is to be prioritised? Ultimately, such scoping should involve broader groups of stakeholders, thus also cross-checking for a shared understanding of transformation: technical solutions are usually insufficient and societal innovation or adjustments required (Hajer et al. 2015). While analysis and understanding can be expected to remain incomplete due to the complexity of systems, it should be possible to identify entry points and try out interventions to support transformation of the system. It is also important to differentiate knowledge gaps and knowledge needs. The former describes missing information for better system understanding; the latter describes necessary information for making decisions or taking action (Dewulf et al. 2020). Distinguishing entry points within a system means identifying the ‘neuralgic points’ also called ‘leverage points’ by some authors in the system, for which strategically oriented interventions are feasible and promising. These are intimately related to understanding the root causes of the problem and this requires being able to navigate and distil, from the rapidly growing supply of data and information, knowledge relevant for transformation whilst referring back to the transformative vision. For example, if the transformative vision relates to providing clean energy to all, the system under analysis is Germany’s energy sector, and the issue is coal-dependent energy production, in terms of knowledge one needs to account for what is the critical knowledge necessary for this system to change and for proposing strategic governance interventions to pursue such change (Scoones et al. 2020). Now, with the root causes of the issues and entry points within the system pinpointed, the aim is to devise actions and solutions. At this point, three knowledge skills have been identified as essential for designing interventions: (i) Knowledge about how to identify action-oriented knowledge needs from a decision-making perspective: This is knowledge at a more specific or granular level, because it relates to the already identified intervention strategy and specific actions. It entails specific knowledge required for informed decision making. Trust and relationship building are essential, as this demands a trustful exchange between not only technical and political experts, 30 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework How? Who? What? Inclusive Governance • Are key agents identified? • Are power regimes and related discourses, values and interests analysed and considered? • Are potential losers of the transformation and their expected losses assessed? • Are the direction and goals of the initial vision for transformation acceptable to key agents (input legitimacy)? • Are the means and instruments of the governance process acceptable to key agents (throughput legitimacy)? • Are the final outcomes of the actions acceptable to key agents (output legitimacy)? Are processes inclusive but manageable? Adaptive Governance • Do change agents take leadership in facilitating learning processes? • Is the performance of the governance process frequently evaluated and improved, e.g. revisit a policy after 5 years and adjust if necessary? • Is there a solution that can be improved or does the system require innovative experimentation and learning? • Do regulatory systems as well as human, institutional, financial and social capital support the implementation of the transformation pathway/project? Informed Governance • Are knowledge holders involved? • Are different forms of knowledge and epistemological cultures taken into account? • What transformation mechanisms/instruments exist? • What do scientists, local people and other knowledge holders know about the performance of these instruments? • Do communication and collaboration processes allow for the inclusion of different knowledge systems (for instance by offering appropriate formats and boundary objects)? Integrated Governance • Are relevant agents collaborating connecting relevant political and non-political processes for the transformation? • Are political levels and implementing agents collaborating in an efficient, complementary governance? • Do sustainability considerations have the necessary priority in policy design, political decisions and implementation processes? • What is the level of integration of policies, finance and information in order to coherently support the aspired development path? • Do (formalised) platforms enable and facilitate the proactive integration of relevant policy and governance processes to coherently incentivise the transformation? • Do institutional configurations and the political mandate/will support the integration as a prerequisite for transformation? Accountable Governance • Who takes decisions on how to transform? Do the key agents take leadership in the transformation? • Do all relevant agents take ownership and accept responsibility addressing all potential “responsibility gaps”? • Do agents take responsibility for adverse effects on third parties and vulnerable groups? Who gets to decide it is time to transform? • Do “protagonist” of the transformation process take responsibility for assuring legitimacy as identified in „inclusion“? • How will governance actors justify the legitimacy of transformation measures? • Do participatory processes generate ownership without deterring important stakeholders? Are evaluation processes (adaptive governance) connected to political consequences and potentially sanctions? • How will governance actors justify the legitimacy of transformation measures? How can key agents be held responsible? Table 2: Guiding questions for turning transformative governance criteria operational in project planning. Example questions Summary of the Chapter Based on a literature review and informed by the results of the global assessments, we developed a conceptual framework that distinguishes five building blocks for addressing transformative change towards sustainable management of global commons (Figure 5). We argue that these five elements need to be incorporated when aiming at inducing and supporting change towards sustainability transformations. 31 3 What is transformative change and how can it be encouraged? – A conceptual framework Transformative governance: actors and interventions A broad range of situation-specific interventions. Their impact / success depends on an adequate combination of: Transformative VISION What futures do we want? Based on a far-reaching critique of current unsustainable development and growth paradigms, a vision and new narratives are needed as motivation for fundamental change. These should make explicit the values that favour sustainable societal welfare. They will have to combine the ‘big picture’ with orientation and provide inspiration for required changes. Transformative KNOWLEDGE What needs to be known for changing the system? From seeking to understand complex systems towards designing strategic interventions for change Transformation DYNAMICS How to navigate, nudge and nurture system change? Understanding phase-in and phase-out sequences to generate momentum, use triggers and pro-actively address resistance. EMANCIPATION and AGENCY How can spaces be created for deliberating just transformations? Spaces for deliberation, inclusion, emancipation: the ‘future as a commons’. Capacities for pursuing own visions of a good life. Negotiating a ‘just transition’. 1 2 3 4 Relevant actors (who?) Instruments (what?) Governance modes (how?) Agents expected to create resistance Agents of change Suitable instruments: • Transform • Evision and adapt • Build new institutions • Phase out Inclusive Affected actors Suitable combination of approaches for transformative governance: • Institutional space • Knowledge integration • Organisational structure • Capacities for learning Informed Adaptive Integrated Accountable 5 Figure 5: Transformative change framework We apply this framework as a heuristic to analyse the transformative potential of the recommendations of the global assessment reports (Chapter 6), project experiences (Chapter 7), and present our main findings according to the building blocks of this framework (Chapter 8). 32 Box 4: Definition of biodiversity and ecosystem services Biodiversity is the “variety of life on Earth, including diversity at the genetic level, among species and among ecosystems and habitats. It includes diversity in abundance, distribution and behaviour, as well as interaction with socio-ecological systems. Biodiversity also incorporates human cultural diversity, which can both be affected by the same drivers as biodiversity, and itself has impacts on the diversity of genes, other species and ecosystems”. (UN Environment 2019 GEO 6: 689) Biodiversity is fundamental for providing ecosystem services, which are the “benefits people obtain from ecosystems. According to the original formulation of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, ecosystem services were divided into supporting, regulating, provisioning and cultural. This classification, however, is superseded in IPBES assessments by the nature’s-contributions-to-people system”. (IPBES GA SPM Glossary 2019: 14) 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges This Chapter is based on global assessments regarding the three global commons. We provide short summaries of the current status and core challenges for the conservation and sustainable management of biodiversity in general and as well as coastal and marine ecosystems in particular. The final section highlights the interactions between the different global commons, climate change and the current pandemic. For a list of the scientific assessments and reports analysed see Appendix 3. STEP 2.1 Analysis of global assessment reports 4.1 Biodiversity The need to conserve biodiversity (see Box 4 for definition) has become a broadly acknowledged societal goal reflected in international frameworks and policies – such as the 2030 Agenda and the CBD – and national and local policies. Beyond ethical or spiritual motivations for biodiversity conservation, the focus on the tangible benefits biodiversity provides to human society has become the dominant narrative. As a result, the fact that biodiversity is critically important to human life is beginning to enter the political and social mainstream. 32 What are the main challenges for sustainable management? 33 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges 4.1.1 Stocktaking: State of biodiversity The critical role biodiversity plays in underpinning human well-being and sustainable development was powerfully demonstrated by the Global Assessment of Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services prepared under the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES): “For example, more than 75 percent of global food crop types, including fruits and vegetables and some of the most important cash crops, such as coffee, cocoa and almonds, rely on animal pollination. Marine and terrestrial ecosystems are the sole sinks for anthropogenic carbon emissions, with a gross sequestration of 5.6 gigatons of carbon per year (the equivalent of some 60 percent of global anthropogenic emissions). Nature underpins all dimensions of human health and contributes to non-material aspects of quality of life – inspiration and learning, physical and psychological experiences, and supporting identities – that are central to quality of life and cultural integrity, even if their aggregated value is difficult to quantify.” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 10) At the same time, the IPBES Global Assessment identifies multiple anthropogenic drivers, in particular land/sea use change, direct exploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive alien species, which cause significant declines in biodiversity. Figure 14 in 4.4 summarises some of the impacts across different ecosystems. In order to meet the SDGs and the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity, these drivers have to be addressed. The IPBES Global Assessment diagnoses, that current efforts for biodiversity conservation and sustainable development are insufficient and require transformative changes across society: “Goals for conserving and sustainably using nature and achieving sustainability cannot be met by current trajectories, and goals for 2030 and beyond may only be achieved through transformative changes across economic, social, political and technological factors” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 14). Figure 6: Species extinction since 1500 for vertebrate groups. Extinction rates are increasing sharply in the past century. Source: IPBES GA SPM 2019: 26, Figure SPM 3B 33 34 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges The assessed decrease of biodiversity is dramatic. Over the past century extinction rates have been increasing dramatically. The adverse consequences of each of the drivers are in themselves huge and undermine sustainable development. It is also important to be aware of interactions between these drivers (in particular climate change interacting with others) which is exacerbating negative impacts on biodiversity and sustainable development. For example, agriculture is a major cause of land use change driving biodiversity loss and climate change, e.g. through forest conversion (IPBES 2018 LDR SPM Figure 6: 31). But this loss in biodiversity is also enhancing the exposure of agriculture to other risks: “Reductions in the diversity of cultivated crops, crop wild relatives and domesticated breeds mean that agroecosystems are less resilient against future climate change, pests and pathogens.” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 12). Hence strategies for more sustainable agriculture including diversification can contribute to both reducing the loss of biodiversity and enhancing the resilience to climate change. It is widely accepted that biodiversity loss and climate change are interconnected and must be addressed together in order to achieve sustainable development (CBD 2019). On the one hand, species and ecosystems are negatively impacted by climate change leading to ecosystem degradation (e.g. forest and wetlands), which in turn contributes to carbon emissions. On the other hand, biodiversity can be part of the solution for contributing to climate change mitigation, adaptation and disaster risk reduction. Such nature-based solutions include “actions to protect, sustainably manage, and restore natural and modified ecosystems in ways that address societal challenges effectively and adaptively, to provide both human well-being and biodiversity benefits” (IUCN 2016: 1); these also may include, for example, afforestation and reforestation for climate change mitigation. However, trade-offs can occur when such activities encroach on land needed for food production or cause adverse impacts on biodiversity through the introduction of invasive species (IPCC SR1.5 SPM 2018). Assessments address these interrelations and the benefits nature-based solutions can have for sustainable development. The main interactions are summarised in Figure 8. However, too often, climate and biodiversity are addressed only within their disciplinary and sectoral silos, and more integration of approaches to tackling these challenges is needed (CBD 2019). Even though governments and the wider societies are increasingly engaging in biodiversity conservation – the global community is not on track to halt or reverse biodiversity loss. With regards to the Aichi Biodiversity Targets under the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020, the IPBES Global Assessment states that it is well established that “[o]verall, the state of nature continues to decline (12 of 16 indicators show significantly worsening trends)” (2019: 33). Bridging the gap between science and policy remains challenging, resulting in a situation in which scientific findings do not translate into effective policy responses. Figure 7: Estimates of the biomass mammals on Earth, split between humans, domesticated mammals and wild mammals (the area of the circle indicates the relative biomass of each group measured in gigatons of carbon). Source: Based on/Adapted from Bar-On et al. 2018, In: UNEP MPN 2021: 61. This figure illustrates how comparatively few individuals of all other species are left on the planet, when compared with humans and the animals we have domesticated. Humans 0.06 Gigatons Domesticated Animals 0.10 Gigatons Wild mammals 0.007 Gigatons 34 35 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges 4.1.2 Putting biodiversity at the core of development agendas – three main challenges The consideration of biodiversity loss alongside climate change as issues critical for sustainable development – rather than “merely” as environmental and as such „subordinated“ problems – is gaining attention. The Independent Group of Scientists appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General concludes in the Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR) that “science has shown that we are on an unsustainable path that is destroying the natural world on which we depend for survival. Science has also indicated that the outcome is not inevitable” (GSDR 2019: 135). A number of interlinked challenges and structural constraints to change the negative trends can be synthesised from global assessments. By scrutinising assessments for this report, possible impediments hindering or delaying sustainable development were identified, which we relate to three core challenges: Challenge 1: Prevailing socio-economic models and incentive structures lead to land and resource use that exceeds biophysical capacities A major challenge is that prevailing socio-economic models and incentive structures lead to land and resource use that increasingly exceeds bio-physical capacities and undermines nature’s contributions to people (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 23). The current structures promote indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss that are highly interrelated and impede sustainable development (see Figure 14 in 4.4.) Current policies and measures fail to address these interlinkages: the IPBES Global Assessment states that it is well established that “[s]ectoral policies and measures can be effective in particular contexts, but often fail to account for indirect, distant and cumulative impacts, which can have adverse effects, including the exacerbation of inequalities” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 39). Economic instruments (e.g. subsidies, financial transfers, tax abatements and commodity prices) that fail to include environmental and social costs create perverse incentives for unsustainable production that is harmful to nature (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 30). This has led to the expansion of unsustainable practices (e.g. unsustainable agriculture and overfishing), which is promoted by indirect drivers such as global trade, at the expense of biodiversity and human well-being. The Independent Group of Scientists describes a “Western-style path dependence of economic growth at environmental costs” (GSDR 2019: 133). As a consequence, current development efforts continue destroying nature and its contributions needed for human well-being and for many of the economic activities humans rely on. Challenge 2: Biodiversity loss reinforces global inequalities which reinforces biodiversity loss The assessments diagnose that competing exploitations of nature are in particular impacting people that are depending on biodiversity for their livelihood, in other words, biodiversity loss has disproportionate negative impacts on indigenous and traditional peoples and poor communities whose livelihoods are highly dependent on natural resources. Although these effects of biodiversity loss “are distributed and experienced differently among social groups, countries and regions” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 10), it exacerbates their vulnerability to poverty (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 15). As highlighted by IPBES GA SPM: “the negative impacts of all these pressures include continued loss of subsistence and traditional livelihoods resulting from ongoing deforestation, loss of wetlands, mining, the spread of unsustainable agriculture, forestry and fishing practices and impacts on health and well-being from pollution and water insecurity” (2019: 14). This is due to the fact that decisions on the use of nature tend to “benefit some people at the expense of others, particularly the most vulnerable” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 10). Assessments have drawn attention to the trade-offs in the way certain contributions of nature are being used, for instance “clearing of forest for agriculture has increased the supply of food, feed, [...] and other materials important for people [...], but has reduced contributions as diverse as pollination [...], climate regulation [...], water quality regulation [...], opportunities for learning and inspiration [...] and the maintenance of options for the future ...” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 22). This often has a snow-ball effect and with their livelihoods being threatened may result in “... [e] xtreme poverty, [which] combined with resource scarcity and inequitable access to resources, can contribute to [further aggravate] land degradation and unsustainable levels of natural resource use” (IPBES LDR SPM 2018: XLI). On a country level, a similar causal relation is at work: the “least developed countries, often rich in and more dependent upon natural re35 36 sources, have suffered the greatest land degradation, have also experienced more conflict and lower economic growth, and have contributed to environmental outmigration by several million people” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 30). This is exacerbated by climate change, which is having adverse impacts on species and ecosystems (e.g. reducing species range), causing ecosystem degradation (e.g. of coral reefs, forests and coastal ecosystems) with negative impacts on ecosystem services with negative consequences for livelihoods, human health, infrastructure and food systems (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 16; IPBES GA SPM 2019: 13; IPCC SR1.5 2018: 11). Figure 8: The interactions between climate change, land use and biodiversity. Source: UNEP MPN 2021: 82 Challenge 3: The conservation of biodiversity as a global public good lacks more determined, integrative and multilateral responses Biodiversity is not only a global commons but also affected by many different activities from a broad range of sectors. Therefore another major challenge relates to global governance – in terms of the set of rules, norms and decision-making processes but also in terms of target-setting, responsibilities, compliance, accountability but also equity and participation (IPBES GA SPM 2019). The protection of biodiversity requires more determined, integrative and multilateral responses. Several multilateral agreements address different aspects of biodiversity conservation (e.g. UN CBD, Ramsar Convention, CITES, CMS and others) but there is a lack of coordination and coherence in policy approaches across the sectors driving biodiversity loss. Policies and responses to address biodiversity loss often remain in silos and thereby limited to certain aspects or policy fields (CBD 2019). The IPBES Global Assessment diagnoses the need for “mainstreaming biodiversity and sustainability across all extractive and productive sectors, including mining, fisheries, forestry and agriculture, so that together, individual and collective actions result in a reversal of the deterioration of ecosystem services at the global level” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 17). 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges Land Degradation & Deforestation Biodiversity Loss Climate Change Reduced Human Well-being Greenhouse gas emissions, increased drought, loss of carbon sinks Species range loss, extinction riskas, ocean acidification, phenological mismatch Loss of ecosystem functioning Biome shifts, regional desertification, increased drought, fire, regional water stress Habitat loss, extinction risks Reduced terrestrial carbon stocks, loss of carbon sinks 36 37 The IPBES ECA (2018: XLVIII) describes “a lack of human resources, institutional capacity and financial means, or corruption” as key constraining factors for effective efforts to achieve biodiversity conservation and also calls for more integrative and multilateral development cooperation. In light of the speed and scale of environmental and societal change and the outlined challenges, the assessments generally agree that a critical shift and transformative action across several sectors of society are necessary but such changes cannot be brought about by a country alone and require international collaboration (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 17). This is also increasingly recognised within the business community as the report by the World Economic Forum states: “Addressing the nature crisis requires a critical shift towards nature-positive models in three key socio-economic systems: food, land and ocean use; infrastructure and the built environment; and extractives and energy.” (WEF 2020: 10). 4.1.3 Summary All assessments agree on the fact that the loss of biodiversity is devastating and increasing and interdependent with climate change. By analysing the stock-taking done in the assessments (Appendix 3 contains a list of the assessments), we identified core challenges that have to be met in order to conserve and restore biodiversity: the unsustainable use of natural resources due to structural issues inherent in our socio-economic systems, inequalities and weak global governance. Increased scientific evidence, growing public understanding and political awareness of the importance of biodiversity, the extent of its loss, and the negative consequences for human well-being alone are at present not sufficient to stop, let alone reverse, biodiversity loss. We will summarise the key recommendations given by the reports to address these challenges in Chapter 5.1 below, and further zoom in on recommended actions for transformative change in Chapter 6.1. 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges 4.2 Forests Forests play a critical role for humans and nature. Not only peoples’ livelihoods are directly dependent on forest ecosystems through the provision of food, timber and non-timber products; they also contribute to ecosystems functioning (regulating ecosystem services – e.g. soil protection, carbon storage, nutrient cycling, water quantity/ quality, regional rainfall patterns) and human health and well-being (cultural ecosystem services – e.g. recreation, traditional uses, spirituality). All these services and functions that forests provide are vital to our lives. They need to be maintained and strengthened if we want to mitigate and adapt to current and future socio-environmental challenges such as climate change. As an example of the relevance of forests for our society considering solely market economic terms, the forest sector contributes directly to the World Gross Domestic Product (GDP) an estimated USD 539 billion annually. When accounting for direct, indirect and induced market effects, the global forest sector amounts to USD 1.2 trillion (Li et al. 2019), which is roughly the equivalent of the GDP of Australia (World Bank 2020), with the forest industry providing about 13.2 million jobs (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 3). The deep interconnection among people, forests and their associated biological diversity has a long history, reflecting the roots of the human species in forests and savannas (Roberts 2020). Forest flora and fauna have been a vital source of raw materials for food and feed, construction, clothing, handicrafts, medicines and other daily livelihood needs to human societies for millennia (Camara-Leret and Denney 2019). An example of these crucial roles of natural forests is given in a regional IPBES assessment report: “Forests in Africa are major providers of food and energy on the continent, and they play a crucial role in conserving biodiversity, mitigating climate and maintaining functional ecosystems. Africa is home to 17% of the world’s natural forests (675 million hectares)” (IPBES Af 2018: 129). Forest biodiversity loss has critical repercussions on ecosystems’ resilience and with it on the capacity of human food systems to adapt to future changes. Its role is crucial by preventing desertification, pest attacks, soil erosion, increase of zoonotic diseases, maintaining the balance of pollinator populations, and providing resilience 37 38 against flooding in coastal areas, among others. Furthermore, forest biodiversity plays an essential role as a gene pool for food and medicinal crops at the local and global level. Healthy forests maintain critical ecological functions at the local and global level, supporting human well-being, health, livelihood and survival, much more than is reflected by their above-mentioned contribution to GDP. Taking into account the value of ecosystem services for which no market exists, studies have concluded that e.g. tropical forests “have a value four times higher when maintained for providing services such as carbon sequestration, non-timber material provisioning, etc. than use for timber production only” (IPBES Af 2018: 169). 4.2.1 Stocktaking: State of natural forests Globally, natural forests have declined over the past decades. Since 1990, about 10 percent of the total world’s forests have been lost due to 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges conversion to other land uses, primarily agricultural land. In total, the estimated loss of forest since 1990 amounts to 420 million hectares on a global scale through deforestation (FAO SWF 2020: 14, Figure 5). Although the deforestation rate has decreased in the last three decades, from 16 million ha per year in the 1990s to 10 million/year during 2015–2020, intact old-growth forests have seen significant declines worldwide, with an estimation of 80 million hectares since 1990 (Potapov et al. 2017; Watson et al. 2018, FAO SWF 2020). This loss has been especially acute in biodiversity hotspots in Australia, Brazil, Central America, Madagascar, Southeast Asia, and West Africa (Hill et al. 2019). Deforestation and forest expansion trends vary in different regions of the world as illustrated in Figure 9 (below), with net forest gains in Asia, Oceania and Europe contrasting with continued net forest losses in Africa and South America. Since 2010 Africa shows the highest net loss of natural forest areas in 2010–2020 with a loss of 3.94 million ha per year, followed by South America with 2.60 million ha per year (FAO SWF 2020). Figure 9: Annual rate of global forest expansion and deforestation (the black line on each bar shows the difference between forest expansion and deforestation – net forest loss/gain). Source: Global Biodiversity Outlook 5, 2020: 53 38 39 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges Considering climatic and ecological zones, 45 percent of the world’s forest is found in the tropics, followed by the boreal (27 per cent), temperate (16 per cent), and subtropical domains (11 per cent). Within these areas, the largest negative change has been occurring in the tropical rainforest. Despite the slowdown of tropical forest loss from 13.8 million ha per year in the 1990s to 9.28 million ha annually in 2015–2020 (FAO SWF 2020: 36) (Figure 9 above), there is still a disturbing rise of deforestation rates in all the Amazon region. Walker et al. (2020) showed that after a period of relative stability in the mid to late 2000s, there was a dramatic 200 per cent increase in Amazon-wide carbon loss from 2012 to 2016. These results reveal that the emission sources were nearly twice as large as previously recognised, confirming Amazon-wide losses from degradation and disturbance (−1,463.7 MtC) accounting for nearly half (46.6 ) of the estimated total (−3,140.7 MtC) in the same period. Besides deforestation, forest degradation is also taking place at alarming rates globally. Forest degradation in the Brazilian Amazon has been found to have an extent of affected area equal to or greater than deforestation (Martricardi et al. 2020). While there is no universally agreed definition of forest degradation, the FAO SWF assessment states that it “entails a reduction or loss of the biological or economic productivity and complexity of forest ecosystems resulting in the long-term reduction of the overall supply of benefits from forest, which includes wood, biodiversity and other products or services” (FAO SWF 2020: 19). The technical difficulties in providing reliable quantification of degradation and the resulting fact that the different countries are not able to report on its status at national levels have led to the use of proxies, such as forest ecosystem health and forest fragmentation indicators, for global assessments to examine degradation. The urgent need for decisive action concerning the world’s tropical forests is compounded by the fact that the rapid disappearance of forest areas often takes place outside any regulatory framework: “A large share of tropical deforestation is likely to be illegal, while corruption, weak enforcement, insecure tenure, and conflicting laws and regulations all hinder effective implementation of even the most promising policies. While there have been small steps forward (e.g. in recognizing the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities), there must be a sustained commitment to support governance to effect transformational change” (NYDF 2019: 74). 4.2.2 Challenges for the sustainable management of forests The following global challenges are based on the reports underlying this study (see Appendix 3). The general biodiversity-related challenges outlined in Chapter 4.1.2 above (excessive resource use, the reinforcement of inequalities, and the need for coordinated action) apply to forests as well, but we focus here on the specific set of issues that are emphasised concerning forests around the world. We organised the main challenges, as they emerged from our qualitative content analysis, into two sections: one deals with deforestation and forest degradation, and the other with competing demands and conflicts with other sectors. Challenge 1: Addressing deforestation and forest degradation, in particular conserving remaining natural forests Across the global assessment reports, there is a consensus that the biggest concern for forests at a global level is the alarming rate at which they have been disappearing and degrading. According to recent FAO figures, “the absolute global forest area declined by about 178 million ha (an area approximately the size of Libya)” in the last three decades (FAO SWF 2020: 10). The area of naturally regenerating forests even decreased by 301 million ha (FAO SWF 2020: 32), an area almost the size of India. On the other hand, “the area of planted forests increased by 123 million ha” in the same period (FAO SWF 2020: 30), with large areas planted with introduced species as is the case for South America (97 per cent) (FAO SWF 2020: 16). Within the category of natural forests, primary forest has an irreplaceable value. These unique ecosystems are hotspots of biodiversity, large contributors to carbon storage and further ecosystem services, including heritage and cultural values (FAO SWF 2020: 34). Despite their relevance, primary forests have decreased worldwide by over 81 million hectares since 1990 (FAO SWF 2020: 16). The lack of an operational definition that would be key to define measurable indicators has led to challenges of monitoring and reporting primary forest status, increasing the uncertainty and threat to these types of forests. In terms of degradation, the FAO reports that more than 100 million hectares of forests are adversely affected, e.g. by forest fires, pests, diseases, invasive species, drought and adverse weather events (FAO SWF 2020: 18). 39 46 Figure 13: Patchwork of sectoral and regional organisations in the areas beyond national jurisdiction. Source: Tessnow-von Wysocki and Vadrot 2020: 6 Water Column Freedom of the high seas Area Common heritage of humankind Sectoral Organisations • International Whaling Commission (IWC) • Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) • International Seabed Authority (ISA) • International Maritime Organization (IMO) • Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Regional Organisations • Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) • Other regional instruments (e.g. OSPAR, CAMLR, UNEP Regional Seas Programme) 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges Connected marine ecosystems are only very partially regulated under national jurisdiction while the high sea is a global common and under an open access regime with highly limited regulations agreed and enacted. In coastal areas and the exclusive economic zone (200 nautical miles from the shore) the use of the ocean, especially fisheries and rights on minerals in the seabed, is regulated under national jurisdiction. Some countries have extended their sovereign rights to further areas of the continental shelf (370 nm from the shore) regarding the rights on seabed resources. Figure 13 illustrates the fragmented nature of current regulations of the areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The water column in general is under the freedom of the high seas principle. Under the umbrella of the CBD, the conservation of biological diversity, the sustainable use of its components; and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from genetic resources are addressed. Also in some geographical ocean areas, regional arrangements are in place. Regional fisheries management organisations (RFMO) are a type of international organisation dedicated to the sustainable management of fishery resources in a particular geographic region of international waters. The Regional Seas Programme from the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), is a regional mechanism for the conservation of the marine and coastal environment. It provides an intergovernmental framework to address the degradation of the oceans and seas at a regional level, initially focusing on pollution at sea, such as oil spills and movement of hazardous waste, as well as land-based sources of pollution, for example, plastics, wastewater and excess nutrients. However, an overarching streamlined governance regime is missing. 4.3.3 Summary The above described challenges of overexploitation and increasing pollution as well as CO2 influx pose major threats to the ocean, the future conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity and its related goods and services. Effects of marine biodiversity degradation are far reaching, due to the interconnectedness of coastal and marine ecosystems. These challenges are poorly addressed by the current, fragmented governance of the ocean and will be further aggravated by climate change. We will summarise the key recommendations given by the reports to address these challenges in Chapter 5.3 below, and further zoom in on recommended actions for transformative change in Chapter 6.3. 46 47 4.4 The urgency of rescuing the global commons The global commons are defined as resources whose jurisdiction goes beyond country limits (United Nations 1997). These kinds of resources are recognised to be fundamental for the maintenance of resilience and dynamics of nature and humankind (Eser 2019). According to Mrema (2017: 3), the global commons include the ocean, atmosphere, outer space, and Antarctica. Lately, given their importance and value for human welfare, biodiversity and forests have also been included. While biodiversity, forests and the ocean are not directly comparable and there is overlap between them, all three are global commons and constitute important parts of the ‘natural capital’ or ‘life support system’ that underlies all human activity and well-being. Assessments clearly show that, for all three, there is increasing and competing use. This leads to degradation and destruction of ecosystems and to biodiversity loss. Figure 14 summarises the most important drivers of loss. Underlying several of these are unsustainable production and consumption patterns as they drive land use change, climate change, pollution and in several instances invasive species. While all economic sectors contribute to loss and degradation of the commons to some degree the agrifood sector plays a prominent role, most notably as a main driver of forest loss due to conversion, but also affecting biodiversity in agricultural areas, adjacent areas and even marine biodiversity through nutrient run-off and other pollution. Figure 14: Indirect and direct drivers of biodiversity loss (left side) are causing declines in biodiversity/nature (right side). Land/sea use changes and direct exploitation are important direct drivers of biodiversity loss followed by climate change, pollution and invasive alien species (centre left). The negative impacts of climate change on biodiversity are expected to significantly increase in the future. Source: IPBES GA SPM 2019: 25 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges 48 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges Figure 15: Global commons addressed by this report In addition, all three commons analysed in this report are detrimentally affected by climate change and, with increasing ecosystem degradation or destruction, are no longer able to function as buffers by capturing large amounts of CO2. On the contrary, they further accelerate climate change by beginning to set free increasing amounts of CO2. They are thus closely linked to and interact with the changing climate system which also has properties of a global commons. Assessment reports further highlight that the lowest income groups depend disproportionately on ecosystem services, provided by global commons for their livelihoods. Due to the connectedness of ecosystems, water and matter cycles and fluxes, these global changes are all interrelated and will have effects everywhere on the planet. Thus it is not only a question of solidarity with those most dependent on the commons who are more severely impacted, but it is in every country’s and in every person’s self-interest to preserve the global commons as foundation of human life on earth also for future generations. These problems are wellknown and the urgency of addressing them is accelerating, so why do they persist? From the beginning, humanity has depended on nature for fish, deer, timber, crops, etc., and largely took clean air, fresh water and flora and fauna for granted. Most contributions from nature were “non-excludable goods”, and as long as they were available in abundance, possible rivalry remained locally restricted, such as in the example of common grazing land. The global problem arose when, with increasing world population and sharp increases in per capita consumption and resource use, especially in the global North and by better-off segments of societies, the earth’s resources started to be overused and contaminated and at a certain point no longer able to fully regenerate. The “use” of biodiversity and the capacity of ecosystems to absorb and degrade pollution and waste, thus cleaning the world’s water and air stocks, and the stability of the climate regime that has allowed humans to populate and live comfortably on Earth, these by and large non-excludable goods have now turned into being rivalrous. From a climate regulation perspective, if we want to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees, the amount of CO2 humanity can emit is limited. A country’s or person’s emission limits everyone else’s; this is even more restrictive if BIODIVERSITY FORESTSTHE OCEAN CLIMATE SYSTEM 49 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges the increase is to be limited to 1.5 degrees. Using and especially degrading or polluting global commons costs the individual nearly nothing but creates costs for all the others – now and in the future. As natural systems are overused, their productive capacity and future potential decreases, a state already reached by more than 1/3 of global fish stocks (compare Figure 15 above). As environmental systems degrade, their ability to filter air and water or their capacity to absorb CO2 diminishes and ocean acidification increases. These losses imply costs for others and are not borne by the person causing them, and are referred to as “external costs” or externalities. As at an individual level, the benefits of adopting pro-environmental behaviours are usually not immediately perceivable or apparent, and the individual has to bear all the costs of the behaviour, it is difficult to achieve sustainable management based only on a widespread change of the individual sense of responsibility. Now that formerly abundantly available goods and services provided by the global commons are scarce, the rules for using or affecting them need to be changed. Environmental and social costs need to be reduced and avoided where possible and all remaining costs included in the decisions causing them. As a final point of stocktaking, we turn to the current situation of a pandemic, as infectious zoonotic diseases, which originally come from other species, are yet another effect where degrading ecosystems and decline of biodiversity play an important role. Very recent reports summarise the scientific understanding of the emergence of new diseases and the links between ecosystem and human health (see Box 5). Box 5: Biodiversity and forest loss underpin disease emergence Fostering transformative change has been recognised as a crucial step towards preventing disease emergence such as the current COVID-19 pandemic. The recently released IPBES workshop report on biodiversity and pandemic (IPBES 2020) and two UNEP reports on pandemics (UNEP 2021) and “Making peace with Nature” (UNEP MPN 2021) conveyed substantial evidence of the anthropogenic environmental changes and socioeconomic changes as underlying drivers of Emerging Infectious Diseases such as COVID-19.Disease emergence is not a new situation for humanity. It has been part of every step of society’s developments with the domestication of wild animals and settlement expansion by increasing the contact required for pathogens to spill over into people. However, current global environmental emergencies, including biodiversity loss, climate change, pollution, and the planet’s continuously deteriorating state, increase the risks of Emerging Infectious Diseases (EID) (UNEP MPN 2021). The IPBES report highlights a significant body of evidence suggesting that the underlying drivers of almost all recent EIDs affecting human populations (i.e., Ebola, SARS, COVID-19) are rooted in anthropogenic environmental and socioeconomic changes. These increases of human population and anthropogenic environmental change have altered contact rates among reservoir hosts, livestock, and people, driving the emergence of diseases (see below). For example, land-use change as a driver of biodiversity loss triggers a decrease in animal habitat together with activities related to deforestation (e.g., road building, mining, agricultural expansion). These contribute to the spread of disease vectors, lead to increased contact among wildlife, people and livestock, and provide pathways for novel diseases to spread (IPBES workshop report 2020). Overall zoonotic pandemics are a predicted consequence of how people source food, trade animals, and alter environments (UNEP MPN 2021). Unsustainable consumption patterns already mentioned in the biodiversity and forest sections are pointed to as the main drivers of environmental change and biodiversity loss, leading to disease emergence. 50 The origin and drivers of emerging zoonotic diseases and pandemics. Microbes have evolved within species of wildlife over evolutionary time (left). They undergo complex life cycles of transmission among single or multiple host species, and often have significant impacts on host population dynamics. These microbes develop emerging infectious diseases (EIDs) when anthropogenic environmental changes alter population structures of their reservoir hosts, and bring wildlife, livestock and people into contact (centre). These interactions can alter transmission dynamics of microbes within their hosts, lead to interspecies transmission of microbes, spillover to livestock and people and the emergence of novel diseases (right). Source: IPBES workshop report 2020: 12 Box 5 cont. 4 Biodiversity, forests, and the ocean – status quo and challenges 51 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis The following summaries are based on the qualitative content analysis of the global assessment reports underlying this study. The content analysis revealed that most assessments make mainly implicit recommendations in their statements and conclusions. We summarise here what can be concluded and what follows from the assessments in terms of recommendations for addressing loss and degradation or their drivers for each of the global commons analysed: biodiversity, forests and the ocean. At the end of the Chapter we continue the conceptual discussion and explore if approaches for managing local commons can be transferred to the global commons. 5.1 Synopsis of main recommendations for biodiversity We group the recommendations along the three core challenges threatening biodiversity identified in Chapter 4. This is followed by recommendations for international cooperation and for jointly tackling biodiversity and climate change, which is seen as crucial given that many negative impacts on biodiversity are exacerbated by climate change and vice versa (CBD 2019). The assessments highlight the importance of a general paradigm shift in economic systems and advocate for far-reaching change to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss, especially in sectors that are based on the use of natural resources (agriculture, forestry, fisheries). “Since current structures often inhibit sustainable development and actually represent the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, such fundamental, structural change is called for.” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 16). Recommendations for addressing excessive resource use (challenge 1) The assessment reports reach the conclusion that most biodiversity loss is a direct result of land-use change due to high and increasing consumption and resource-intensive production further aggravated by inauspicious incentive structures. “In the short term (before 2030), all decision makers could contribute to sustainability transformations, including through enhanced and improved implementation and enforcement of effective existing policy instruments and regulations, and the reform and removal of harmful existing policies and subsidies (well established). Additional measures are necessary to enable transformative change over the long term (up to 2050) to address the indirect drivers that are the root causes of the deterioration of nature (well established), including changes in social, economic and technological structures within and across nations” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 39). The ways in which the unsustainable use of land and resource drives biodiversity loss is most obvious in the world’s agrifood systems and the corresponding consumption patterns (e.g. IPBES GA SPM 2019: 30). A number of assessment documents therefore emphasise the need for redesigning the agrifood sector and related branches. Changing food production and consumption and related incentive structures (e.g. reducing harmful subsidies) are important leverage points and levers for halting biodiversity loss. Regarding consumption of food and other products, the recommendations focus on changes in diets, reduction of food waste, rethinking and adjustment of supply chains, the 51 STEP 2.2 Analysis of global assessment reports What are recommendations for transformative change? 52 potential of circular economic models, and efforts to internalise externalities. Assessments also call for enhancing productivity while reducing the biophysical impact on nature, specifically using agroecology and agroforestry practices, restoring degraded agricultural land, and taking inter-sectoral approaches to agricultural and spatial planning: “Pathways to sustainable food systems entail land-use planning and sustainable management of both the supply/producer and the demand/consumer sides of food systems (well established)” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 42). A central recommendation is to limit the demand for natural resources and thus curb “overconsumption” (WEF 2020: 38). In the food sector, this can be achieved by adopting “sustainable and healthy diets with a greater emphasis on a diversity of foods, mostly plant-based, and more moderate consumption of meat and fish” (SCBD 2020: 164) as well as the reduction of food waste (SCBD 2020: 142). Engagement with the public and actors in the food system on these issues “... could help to reduce food waste, overconsumption, and the demand for animal products that are produced unsustainably, which could have synergistic benefits for human health” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 42). Assessments also point out that besides the agrifood system also “the consumption of other material goods and services affecting biodiversity, for example in forestry, energy and provision of fresh water” should be limited (SCBD 2020: 142). Reduced consumption demands, the reports argue, should be underpinned by behaviour change. IPBES calls for “visions of a good quality of life that do not entail ever increasing material consumption” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 17), and the WEF recommends that “behavioural changes among businesses and consumers to increase willingness to recycle, refurbish and rent rather than own” should be turned into research and development priorities (WEF 2020: 14). This has considerable implications for business models that are today centred on increasing consumption rates. Another prominent option to reduce pressure on natural resources would be to enhance land productivity while reducing harmful impacts. This could be achieved by “rapidly scaling circular and resource-efficient models of production” (WEF 2020: 14) under the banner of sustainable intensification, which “comprises a range of methods to achieve these objectives” (SCBD 2020: 160). Such a “transition requires greater understanding and adoption of the appropriate agronomic solutions” while being aware of possible tradeoffs (WEF 2020: 11). “Options for sustainable agricultural production are available and continue to be developed [including] [...] agroecological practices, soil and water conservation practices, conservation agriculture, agroforestry [...]. These practices could be enhanced through well-structured regulations, incentives and subsidies, the removal of distorting subsidies” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 42). The WEF report also emphasises that “transparent and sustainable supply chains’’ (WEF 2020: 12) are needed if “[n]ature-positive extractive activities’’ are to succeed (WEF 2020: 13). To achieve this legal regulation is seen as key, for example governments should “introduce mandatory procurement reporting standards for the private sector and sustainable sourcing requirements for public procurement” or establish “sustainable trade standards” (WEF 2020: 40). Assessments frequently recommend policy instruments for biodiversity conservation and sustainable use and specifically the use of economic instruments such as payments for ecosystem services, biodiversity-relevant taxes, fees and charges. They should be implemented “through place-based governance interventions […] using strategic policy mixes and learning from feedback” (IBES GA SPM 2019: 40). Positive incentives are presented as “an alternative to governmental command-and-control measures” (IPBES Am 2018: 539), especially “mechanisms where the beneficiaries compensate the providers for the additional provision or maintenance of desired ecosystem services” (IPBES Am 2018: 539). A key recommendation is related to the adoption of more holistic views on national assets and welfare. Views on nature-society relations that extend beyond nature as a means to production, as a means to use to increase human well-being but rather emphasise nature in humans and the connections between human beings and the natural environment. This shift is likely to go along with new economic metrics, extending “beyond standard economic indicators such as gross domestic product to include those able to capture more holistic, longterm views of economics and quality of life” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 19). More specifically, authorities should increasingly “encourage and support the development and use 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 52 53 of standards, metrics and methods for quantifying, reporting and managing natural capital risks and opportunities” (GSDR 2019: 133). This also means that the private sector should be urged to internalise and proactively manage environmental risks. The Independent Group of Scientists insists: “Financial institutions should ensure that, at the very least, they do no harm and do not support companies that deplete natural capital. Financial risk management should treat natural capital as an integrated whole, not as a series of standalone components.” (GSDR 2019: 133). Some assessments also call for a change of narratives related to human-nature relationships and especially with regard to developing economies a potential is seen in leapfrogging harmful development steps. Recommendations for addressing inequalities (core challenge 2) Regarding the challenge “Biodiversity loss reinforces inequalities which at the same time reinforce biodiversity loss” assessment reports formulate the need for reducing inequalities from local to global scales. Furthermore, recommendations stress the need for more inclusive approaches, in particular related to indigenous and local communities. The interlinkages between biodiversity and inequality in various fields should be better understood and addressed. Prominently, the reports recommend “action to reduce inequalities within and among countries” (which corresponds to SDG 10) as “essential to achieve biodiversity objectives” and other development goals as well (SCBD 2020: 29, our emphasis). The objective to “eliminate deprivations and build resilience”, as the Independent Group of Scientists points out, requires special “targeted attention where poverty and vulnerability are concentrated” (GSDR 2019: 127). Fighting inequality and its environmental impacts also “implies incorporating the reduction of inequalities into development pathways” via “a mix of policies” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 19). Offering strong support to small-scale producers is regarded as a strong lever for change. This could in part be achieved through “agri-food value chains and pro-poor markets for nutritious foods” (GSDR 2019: 130), given that “much of the increase in food production will have to come from the 750 million smallholder farmers that estimates show will be operating in 2030” (GSDR 2019: 65). Infrastructure investments, which tend to “benefit larger production units, particularly those involved in global supply chains” (ibid.: 65), should be designed in a way to more strongly include needs of smallholders. In addition, the often deficient institutional involvement of “small-scale producers, and women and youth in particular, in decision-making processes” should be improved (FAO SWBFA 2019: 450). Last but not least, the legal status of indigenous and local communities, along with their role in sustainability efforts, should be recognised and strengthened according to the assessment reports. Better law enforcement and “ensuring universal and effective access to justice” should be priorities (GSDR 2019: 44). The Independent Group of Scientists gives a specific example: “Latin American countries might focus on measures that reduce gaps in education attainment and access to justice between indigenous women and the rest of society” (GSDR 2019: 45). It is also made clear that “national recognition of land tenure, access and resource rights” would facilitate more “positive contributions of IPLCs to sustainability” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 18). IPBES further recommends abiding by principles of free, prior and informed consent, along with “improved collaboration, fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use [of nature], and co-management arrangements with local communities” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 18). Recommendations for more determined, integrative and multilateral responses (challenge 3) There are numerous recommendations addressing biodiversity conservation, many of them highlighting the need for more integrative responses. They include the strengthening and differentiation of protected area networks and other effective area-based conservation measures, better cross-sector coordination, integrated planning, and policy mixes for incentives and regulations. The recommendations address specific sectors – namely agriculture and energy – and different governance levels and actors including international collaboration, the private sector, and re-search institutions. The assessment reports promote nature-based solutions for addressing development, climate change and biodiversity conservation in an integrated manner (see also below). 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 53 54 Assessments point to the need that “strengthening the sustainable use and conservation of [biodiversity] often requires actions on a large geographical scale (e.g. across watersheds or along migration routes) and involving a wide range of different stakeholders’’ beyond regional or national boundaries (FAO SWBFA 2019: 395). Similarly, countries are “interdependent in their use of genetic resources in the crop, livestock, fishing, aquaculture and forest sectors” (FAO SWBFA 2019: 395). Improved cooperation across and within countries would increase the effectiveness of measures “in mitigating undesirable cross-scale impacts on biodiversity and ecosystem services” (IPBES ECA 2018: 20). IPBES Americas points out that “sustainable use and management outside protected areas remains a priority”, too, given the relatively small percentage of areas under protection in many places (IPBES Am 2018: XVI). This should be agreed upon at international level stressing the need for a biodiversity conservation vision that clearly goes beyond protected areas. With regards to protected areas and their future role as well as the inclusion of OECMs under a new global framework for Biodiversity conservation, the OECD recommendation to reinforce “direct public involvement in policy making” through “innovative methods [such as] digital public consultations and deliberative polls” points to a potential for better ad-dressing societal involvement (OECD 2019: 18). In light of the multiple high and increasing demands of often competing land uses, wider societal debates are crucial to legitimise choices and aim for broadly accepted solutions. Directly confronting drivers of biodiversity loss is highly recommended by multiple assessment reports studied here. One way to do this is through “taking pre-emptive and precautionary actions in regulatory and management institutions and businesses to avoid, mitigate and remedy the deterioration of nature” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 17). Environmental regulations should be expanded and better enforced (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 17), making sure “that fiscal incentives and subsidies stop encouraging ecosystem conversion but rather spur restoration” (WEF 2020: 11). Furthermore, “the monitoring of recognised threats to [biodiversity], such as habitat destruction, pollution, inappropriate use of agricultural inputs, overharvesting, pests, diseases and invasive alien species” should be improved (FAO SWBFA 2019: 445). A call for more sustainable farming practices is evident across different global assessment re-ports. Suggestions include agroforestry (GSDR 2019: 129; see also next Section 5.2), “agroecological and other innovative approaches” (SCBD 2020: 160), techniques that range “from the holistic approaches of many IPLCs to the ecosystem-based approaches developed for sectorial management” (IPBES Am 2018: XVI), and a mixture of “traditional farming techniques, advanced precision technologies, and biobased inputs” (WEF 2020: 11) that could transform agricultural areas into multifunctional landscapes “supportive of biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people” (IPBES Am 2018: XVI). In addition, “land degradation neutrality” should be widely adopted as a political target (GSDR 2019: 132) and restoration efforts could further “enhance biodiversity and the supply of supporting and regulating ecosystem services in agricultural landscapes” (IPBES Am 2018: 538). The fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO 5) specifically advocates integrated action across sector boundaries. Ideally, actions “in one area will remove barriers impeding change in another, so that multiple interventions […] become more feasible” (SCBD 2020: 142). Examples of integrated approaches “applying the ecosystem approach” (ibid.: 148) include “spatial planning to reduce the negative impacts on biodiversity of urban expansion, roads and other infrastructure” (ibid.: 168), but also the recognition that “biodiversity and all aspects of human health” are closely linked and need to be addressed jointly (ibid.: 176). Alliances between the public and the private sector should focus on accelerating research and development, “training the workforce on circularity models, and providing consumer education and enhanced awareness about materials recycling that are essential for behavioural shifts” (WEF 2020: 76). Moreover, if the ties between cities and their surrounding landscapes were to be strengthened, this could contribute to boosting “urban citizens’ relationship with nature” together with efforts to promote “green space, urban biodiversity and urban food production” (GSDR 2019: 132). The need for international cooperation International collaboration is considered crucial; this is for example emphasised for Africa where “new perspectives and collabo5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 54 55 rations” are necessary (IPBES Af 2018: 4). The report points out that “[m]ainstreaming biodiversity and ecosystem services into policies and actions at different levels is vital’’, which should bring together stakeholders “with different perspectives” and be “supported by enhanced international cooperation and multilevel partnerships” (IPBES Af 2018: XIX). Concerning the use of scenario analyses as decision-making tools, IPBES states: “Transformative outcomes will be fully attained if concerted efforts are taken to mobilize financial resources and build the capacity of African researchers, policymakers and institutions” (IPBES Af 2018: XIX). More effective alliances will be needed around global trade “to harmonize standards, labels and trade policy in materials use, recovery and disposal” that increase “transparency for consumers” (WEF 2020: 76). Particularly “major trade blocs” should lead such efforts (WEF 2020: 76). The IPBES Global Assessment report points out: “Trade agreements and derivatives markets could be reformed to promote equity and prevent the deterioration of nature” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 43), but also cautions that the best way to implement such reform is not completely clear. Stronger business alliances for specific regions or supply chains could “accelerate the deployment of in-novative financing models and technological innovation to catalyse change at the required scale” (WEF 2020: 14). The threats to biodiversity brought by the introduction of invasive species into ecosystems requires intergovernmental sharing of information and collaboration (IPBES Af 2018: 31), which would require “additional funding and capacity-building” (IPBES Af 2018: XVII). Similarly, the GBO 5 highlights “the importance of international cooperation to support restoration” (SCBD 2020: 151). Multilevel partnerships and adequate means of implementation are seen as crucial to fulfil a number of international targets, including “the Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and its Aichi Biodiversity Targets, the SDGs and targets, the 2-degree centigrade commitments under the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change and Agenda 2063 aspirations for a prosperous Africa” (IPBES Af 2018: XLII). Jointly addressing climate change and biodiversity Multiple assessment reports emphasise that biodiversity loss and climate change need to be addressed together. This is driven by a full recognition of “the role of biodiversity in sustaining the capacity of the biosphere to mitigate climate change through carbon storage and sequestration and in enabling adaptation through resilient ecosystems” (SCBD 2020: 172), and of “synergies between these two demands” (IPBES Am 2018: 557). Among the multiple benefits of mutually supportive climate and land policies, the IPCC points out “the potential to save resources, amplify social resilience, support ecological restoration, and foster engagement and collaboration between multiple stakeholders” (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 29), which can moreover “contribute to poverty eradication and more resilient livelihoods” (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 35). The IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land diagnoses that restoration activities and “sustainable land management can contribute to reducing the negative impacts of multiple stressors” (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 7); it can have multiple benefits for climate change mitigation (e.g. enhancing soil carbon storage), adaptation and biodiversity conservation and at the same time benefit agricultural production and food security (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 24). “[T]he importance of international cooperation to support restoration” (SCBD 2020: 151) can be reiterated here. Great emphasis is placed on nature-based solutions – e.g., “reducing deforestation and other land-use change and degradation, restoring degraded lands and ecosystems and enhancing soil management in agricultural and range lands” (CBD 2019: 13) – by several assessment reports. These solutions “offer immediate and cost-effective benefits to both mitigate climate change and to adapt to its unavoidable effects” (CBD 2019: 13), hold “substantial opportunity for protection and restoration of nature” (WEF 2020: 15), and should be accompanied by “a rapid phase-out of fossil fuel use” (SCBD 2020: 172). A further related argument made by some reports is that “[a]gricultural practices that include indigenous and local knowledge can contribute to overcoming the combined challenges of cli-mate change, food security, biodiversity conservation, and combating desertification and land degradation” (IPCC SRCCL SPM 2019: 31). 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 55 62 cus here on recommendations on overfishing. Given the loss of biodiversity and the critical importance of fisheries to global food security and nutrition, it is urgently recommended that overall unsustainable exploitation rates be reduced, sustainable fishing practices be adopted, and overfished stocks be rebuilt (FAO SOFIA 2020: 70; IPCC SROCC 2019: 402, WOA 2016: 16). Reducing the overfishing of wild fish stocks is tightly linked to addressing illegal fishing, capacity-enhancing subsidies, the lack of alternative livelihoods, and the lack of incentives to protect the underlying resources, poor local and institutional governance and suboptimal management. In this context, the World Ocean Assessment (2016) stresses the importance of improving ecosystem-based approaches to fisheries management. Efforts to rebuild capture fishery resources requires reducing harvests below the net growth rates of the fish stock to allow fisheries resources to recover and potentially increase (WOA 2016). Thus, for many ecological reasons, the concept of “maximum sustainable yield” (MSY) is but an over-simplified reference point for fisheries (Larkin 1977; Pauly 1994; WOA 2016: 11: 7). However, to understand the status of fisheries, assessment and monitoring of individual stocks are needed (FAO SOFIA 2020: 193). To do so novel stock assessment methods need to be developed and implemented that require less detailed data and less technical expertise, especially in developing countries (ibid.). Besides, the FAO report (ibid.) recommend to “[m]obilize resources and provide financial support for continued capacity development programmes aimed at strengthening stock and fisheries assessment and monitoring systems” but also to incorporate multiple types of available information, including local knowledge and expertise, into assessment and management approaches. The World Ocean Assessment (2016: 32: 13) points out that human capacity and infrastructure should be developed on a continual basis. Furthermore, this knowledge need to be communicated across all actors for improving decision-making, but also to raise “awareness about the impact of illegal fishing on overfishing and fish stock recovery.” (FAO SOFIA 2020: 194). Market mechanisms and subsidies that encourage over-capacity and overfishing should be removed whilst improving subsidies for sustainable management of fishery resources. The World Ocean Assessment (2016) also recommends developing tools for managing smallscale fisheries efficiently, particularly in view of the competing industrial-scale long-distance fleets. IUU fishing becoming more prominent has exacerbated the situation. It is necessary for developing countries to build the capacity to develop sustainable industrial fisheries and to develop stock assessment capabilities for small-scale fisheries balancing food security and conservation objectives (WOA 2016: 11: 18). As noted in the World Ocean Assessment (2016: 11: 4), the “FAO continues to encourage the establishment of fishers’ organizations and cooperatives as a means of empowerment for small-scale fishers in the management process to establish responsible fisheries policy”. Calls for action on by-catch and discards have been raised at the United Nations General Assembly. This was reinforced by a recent global review of practices by regional fisheries management organisations and arrangements (RFMO/ As) for deep sea fisheries (WOA 2016). Not only is marine biodiversity threatened by overfishing, but rising water temperature and acidification are also important variables for marine fish stocks. FAO report states, that this re-quires urgent changes in fisheries and transformative adaptation of fishers and aquaculture farmers, as well as institutions and policies, to the impacts of climate change (FAO SOFIA 2020: 195). Fisheries management should be improved in this regard through “multi-sectoral, holistic and precautionary approaches” and mechanisms for adaptive spatial management should be developed (ibid.). In addition, the FAO report (ibid.: 195-196) emphasises the need for diversification of value chains and markets, and investments in innovative fishing and fish farming practices, modern insurance alternatives, early warning systems, communication, and the use of real-time industry data are recommended. The ecosystem approach to fisheries management should not only address ecological issues and governance but also socio-economic issues of human well-being (WOA 2016: 53: 1). Enhancing the traditional subsistence type of fishing commonly practiced in the developing world requires addressing fishing in terms of commerce and profit and thereby creating employment and sup-porting livelihoods. Advanced capacity-building for appropriate skills will be required to be able to use advanced technologies to create wealth from capture fisheries and aquaculture in a sustainable way (ibid.: 32: 15). Indeed, as stressed in the FAO report (2020), fish farming (aquaculture) allows greater control 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 62 63 over production processes than capture fisheries, and it is more conducive to vertical and horizontal integration in production and supply chains. Despite the fact that aquaculture has expanded fish availability to regions and countries with otherwise limited or no access to the cultured species, often at cheaper prices and leading to improved nutrition and food security, surprisingly little attention is given to this sector and its impacts on ecosystems in the World Ocean Assessment (2016) to date. This is in stark contrast to the situation that at the global level, since 2016, aquaculture has been the main source of fish available for human consumption (FAO SOFIA 2020). However, the ocean is not only a place of marine resource extraction, but also a pollution discharge site. The global assessment reports outline recommendations for different types of discharges. They are in agreement that a big part of the pollution in oceans is due to agricultural production increase and change in practice. Measures recommended range from broad calls to “promote the proper handling of agricultural waste and slurry and the proper use of agricultural fertilizers and pesticides” (WOA 2016: I: 49) to more concrete measures such as, e.g. reducing fertilisers, but also ”educating farmers, promoting good husbandry practices that cause less nutrient run-off and monitoring what is happening to agricultural run-off alongside sewage dis-charges” (ibid.: I: 27). In the case of pesticides, the report recommends the usage of newer less-polluting pesticides (ibid.: I: 27). In addition to inputs from agricultural practices, pollution of oceans is mainly caused by wastewater, heavy metals and other hazardous substances, oil spills and marine litter. In particular, a proper management of wastewater and human bodily waste is recommended “in and near large and growing conurbations without proper sewage treatment systems, such as found in many places in developing countries” (WOA 2016: I: 31). To reduce the discharges and emissions of heavy metals and other hazardous substances, the World Ocean Assessment (2016) calls for a better management of “solid waste placed in landfills” and the use of “cleaner technologies to chemical and other production processes” (WOA 2016: I: 48). To reduce ocean pollution from oil spills, the assessment further suggests “a good deal of organization and equipment” (ibid.: 17: 28). Most prominently discussed, however, is the significant issue of marine litter. This comprises various types of material, i.e. plastics, metal, glass, rubber, clothes and textiles, paper, etc., originating from a wide and diverse range of sources, the majority (approximately 80 percent) entering the ocean from land-based sources (WOA 2016: 25: 3). Strategies aiming at plastic bags, like taxes and charges, have proven to be successful in both developed and developing countries. Market-based instruments, such as bottle deposit refund schemes and container deposit schemes were also shown to be effective (ibid.). Overall, the recommendations stress the role of capacity development “to assess the environ-mental, social and economic aspects related to coastal, riverine and atmospheric inputs from land” and “to identify hazardous substances, which also includes ability to establish: thresholds of toxicity, persistence and bio-accumulation, a substance database with experimental data, monitoring and assessment programmes” (WOA 2016: 32: 19). The report suggests to “[d] eliver the organization, equipment and skills to monitor and control other human activities that impact on the marine environment” (ibid.: I: 49). Recommendations for integrating ocean governance (challenge 3) Most assessments address the governance dimensions of the ocean rather implicitly via management recommendations. However, the inherent difficulties in regulating the ocean as common property requires a minimum set of rules, defining access conditions and conservation measures to ensure sustainability and economic returns (WOA 2016: 15: 7). The assessments point to the issues that formal regulations need to have inclusive elements of local communities. For many, the ocean also forms part of their traditional cultural identity that creates a feeling of “ownership”, even though it rarely entails any established legal rights to exclude others from e.g. customary fishing grounds (ibid.: I: 25). Any successful management addressing and conducting sustainable resource use and conservation measures will rely on a combination of good information about what is happening and the skills needed to integrate and apply a wide range of information. According to the World Ocean Assessment (2016: 27: 23) these should include: (a) knowledge about the main features of the local marine environment and their vulnerability to activities affecting these; 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 63 64 (b) information about the location, scale and economic significance of those activities; (c) the relationships between different uses of the marine environment in the locality; and (d) skills to evaluate what would be the most appropriate balance between the various interests involved (including the conservation of the local marine environment and any formally protected coastal or marine areas) and to broker or settle an acceptable agreement between all those interests. However, many local problems constitute a global problem core, indicated by the recurrence of common issues across many marine ecosystems. Addressing them requires international effort in building the capacities in infrastructure resources, organisational arrangements and technical skills (WOA 2016: I: 42). Existing power asymmetries and socio-ecological conflicts complicate the solution of ecological problem situations. The World Ocean Assessment (2016) cautions that any unbalanced approach focused primarily on assigning monetary values can exacerbate those asymmetries and increase conflicts and therefore recommends the use of Marine Spatial Planning “for analysing and allocating spatial and temporal distribution of human activities in marine areas to achieve ecological, economic, and social objectives that are usually specified through a political process” (WOA 2016: 22: 13). Giving equal focus to non-market/non-use services within the ecosystem services framework is both a desirable approach and a strength of this method for decision-making (ibid.: 3: 5). As a case in point, managing “space use conflicts” between largeand small-scale fisheries and with other sectors such as mining is an increasingly important issue in many parts of the world (ibid.: 15: 11). The World Ocean Assessment (2016) emphasise that “the collaborative processes at the heart of marine spatial planning foster relationships and linkages among ocean uses, stakeholders and resources managers to enhance the quality of scientific information and traditional knowledge available. This collaboration and information exchange can lead to better-informed siting decisions [e.g. for offshore renewable energy projects] and can minimise social and environmental impacts.” (WOA 2016: 3: 27). According to the World Ocean Assessment (2016), putting conservation efforts under the umbrella of MSP is necessary as although protection from direct human uses of areas where important habitats exist (such as bans on converting mangroves to aquaculture or port facilities) can often produce immediate benefits. However, there are also pressures that do not originate from the specific area, such as runoff from the land, diseases and invasive species, which require coordinated efforts far beyond the specific habitats for which the protection is intended (WOA 2016: I: 34). In relation to the three major challenges associated with climate change (ocean warming, acidification, and oxygen depletion), the IPCC report (2019: 35) highlights the importance of taking a long-term perspective in short-term decision-making to account for uncertainties of context-specific risks beyond 2050. The report further emphasises that existing “governance structures are not well-matched to the spatial and temporal scale of climate change impacts” and recommends building governance capabilities to tackle complex risks (IPCC SROCC 2019: 8). The FAO report further recommends that ongoing adaptation actions should be transformative and implemented through multi-sectoral, holistic, and precautionary approaches to achieve resilience (FAO SOFIA 2020: 195). The IPCC report, in addition to “intensifying cooperation and coordination among governing authorities across scales, jurisdictions, sectors, policy domains and planning horizons” highlights that “[r]egional cooperation, including treaties and conventions, can support adaptation action (high confidence)” (IPCC SROCC 2019: 34). The World Ocean Assessment (2016) identifies the main capacity needs of MSP being directed to cross-cutting issues among the regions; these are summarised as follows: (i) Data accessibility and data sharing; (ii) The provisions for mentoring and training opportunities for less experienced scientists and practitioners; (iii) Data collection and marine habitat mapping to inform management of ecosystems, biodiversity and fisheries; (iv) Need to improve professional capacities to assess socio-economic issues; and (v) Capacity to conduct integrated and ecosystem-services assessments (WOA 2016: 32: 2). “The areas where such information seems particularly closely related to management decisions are integrated coastal zone management (including marine spatial management), offshore hydrocarbon exploitation, offshore mining, shipping routes, port development and waste disposal” (WOA 2016: I: 46). 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 64 65 Summary As the ocean covers 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, hosts myriad ecosystems, plays a central role in climate change, and is used and overexploited by humans in a variety of ways, recommendations cover a wide range of topics. To acknowledge the interconnectedness of marine ecosystems and their interactions with socioeconomic systems, any approach to regulating and managing marine subsystems must be balanced with the realities of adjacent regions. In particular, measures to adapt to climate change impacts must follow holistic, cross-sectoral, and pre-cautionary principles. Concerning the regulation of excessive marine resource use, the assessments recommend strengthening sustainable fisheries practices and removing market mechanisms and subsidies which encourage overfishing. To reduce the input of harmful discharges, the assessments call for minimising the run-off of agricultural fertilisers, improving the management of wastewaters and reducing the production and distribution of hazardous substances and plastics. The recommendations from the assessments for integrating ocean governance address the topic rather implicitly via management recommendations. Nevertheless, a minimum set of rules are called for to regulate the ocean as a common property that defines access conditions and conservation measures. At the local to regional level Marine Spatial Planning is considered a tool for balancing and integrating environmental, economic, and social goals and for managing land use conflicts. 5.4 Global commons: from tragedy to opportunity? In summary: Recommendations for all three commons, biodiversity, forest and the ocean, emphasise the need to transform and reduce consumption and to change our production systems. In particular, this applies to the global agrifood system, which considered to be one of the main drivers of biodiversity and forest loss, and also has a significant impact on marine and coastal areas due to increasing use of fertiliser and pesticides. Moreover, recommendations clearly state the urgency of behavioural and value change, that can be exemplified by change of diet, consumption and waste management (e.g. marine litter), as well as integrating all currently externalised costs into the prices of products we consume. Participation and representation of different visions are recognised as key in order to ensure inclusive actions to address inequality and natural resources degradation. The sustainability challenges faced by the three global commons reinforce the crucial relevance of a more integrated management approach that acknowledges the connectivity and mutual dependence across adjacent ecosystems. Recommendations also highlight the crucial relevance of revising policy, fiscal and market instruments to correct incentive structures that currently benefit overuse and fail to prevent excessive exploitation of natural resources (e.g. land use change, illegal logging, overfishing). Assessments also stress the urgency for improving intersectoral coordination and participation as well as international cooperation. A recently released UNEP synthesis report “Making peace with nature: A scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity, and pollution emergencies” also highlights several of these points (UNEP MPN 2021). The report takes an integrated approach to managing biodiversity, climate and pollution. The recommendations build on the evidence from global assessment reports; key messages are presented in Box 6 below. 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 66 Box 6: Key messages from Making Peace with Nature: a scientific blueprint to tackle the climate, biodiversity and pollution emergencies report (UNEP MPN 2021) This report comes from a group of scientists under the umbrella of UNEP, led by Ivar Baste (GEO, IPBES; Norwegian Environment Agency, Norway) and Robert Watson (IPCC, IPBES; UEA, UK). The report is based on evidence from global assessments, including the GBO 5. It makes a strong case about the common cause of the three environmental emergencies, climate, biodiversity, and pollution, and their interlinkages. They stress the fact that the only way to ad-dress them is together and in a holistic way. The top five • Environmental changes are undermining hard-won development gains by causing economic costs and millions of premature deaths annually. They are impeding progress towards ending poverty and hunger, reducing inequalities and promoting sustainable economic growth, work for all and peaceful and inclusive societies. • The well-being of today‘s youth and future generations depends on an urgent and clear break with current trends of environmental decline. The coming decade is crucial. Society needs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 45 per cent by 2030 compared to 2010 levels and reach net-zero emissions by 2050 to limit warning to 1.5 °C as aspired to in the Paris Agreement, while at the same time conserving and restoring biodiversity and minimising pollution and waste. • Earth’s environmental emergencies and human well-being need to be addressed together to achieve sustainability. The development of the goals, targets, commitments and mechanisms under the key environmental conventions and their implementation need to be aligned to become more synergistic and effective. • The economic, financial and productive systems can and should be transformed to lead and power the shift to sustainability. Society needs to include natural capital in decision-making, eliminate environmentally harmful subsidies and invest in the transition to a sustainable future. • Everyone has a role to play in ensuring that human knowledge, ingenuity, technology and cooperation are redeployed from transforming nature to transforming humankind‘s relation-ship with nature. Polycentric governance is key to empowering people to express themselves and act environmentally responsibly without undue difficulty or self-sacrifice. What can be learnt from the literature on managing the commons? The process of rapid degradation that global commons are facing has often been referred to as “tragedy of the commons”, implying a dilemma and lack of alternatives. However, by becoming aware of and acknowledging their importance for humankind, this “tragedy” can be turned into an “opportunity of the global commons” (Eser 2019: 3), as also illustrated by GEF and IUCN (2017) in their booklet with the same title. International conventions such as the CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD are examples of such acknowledgement. They have created momentum to act and design (more) effective governance solutions, albeit to date without sufficient success. Applying lessons from the design principles for the sustainability of local commons in the design of new governance solutions or the enhancement of existing international agreements for the global commons could be one of the ways of changing the path from tragedy to opportunity. Buck (1998) has extended Ostrom’s design principles derived from successful cases of management of local commons (1990), for the analysis of the global commons. Her framework is summarised in Box 7. We will use it to draw attention to missing elements for the successful management of global commons below. 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 67 Box 7: Buck’s Analytical Framework for the Global Commons. Source: Eser 2019: 15 I. Levels of Institutional Choice a. Operational choice: appropriation, provision, monitoring, and enforcement b. Collective choice: policy making, management, and adjudication c. Constitutional choice: formulation, governance, adjudication, and modification II. Design Principles for Sustainable Regimes (principles especially important for global commons are indicated in bold) a. Clearly defined boundaries b. Operational rules congruent with local conditions c. Collective choice arrangements d. Monitoring e. Graduated sanctions f. Conflict resolution mechanisms g. Rights to organise regimes h. Nested enterprises In addition, for multiple-use commons 1. Resource domain must be able to support all uses 2. All users must be represented 3. Knowledge of operational rules must be shared Sources: Edwards and Steins, “Developing an Analytical Framework”; McGinnis and Ostrom “Institutional Analysis”; Ostrom, Governing the Commons At the level of institutional choice (see Box 7), the Ocean (in particular the high seas) as one of the most emblematic global commons still needs the formulation of constitutional rules. So far there are no functional global agreements on sustainable management of resource exploitation or regarding the oceans role as sink. The atmospheric sink, on the contrary, already counts with an international convention and several agreements for the regulation of the GHG. Based on Ostrom’s principles, Paavola (2008: 331) analysed the governance of atmospheric sinks and proposed “generic environmental governance functions”. He identified several gaps of the institutional framework related to the lack of formalisation of “entitlements to the use of atmospheric sinks” and the “highly unequal distribution of benefits from the use of atmospheric sinks’’ (ibid.). He also pointed out the need for improving “participation in environmental decisions, particularly across the levels of governance in order to guarantee progress in and legitimacy of the governance framework” and the involvement of subnational levels of governance to “complement international and national levels” (bidi.: 332). In line with these conclusions, the recommendations of the assessments also address the need to approach inequality and to integrate stake-holders at all levels. This last aspect is reinforced in the UNEP’s (2021) top 5 where polycentric governance is highlighted as a way to empower actors at all levels of action. More recently, Eser (2019) in an analysis of international environmental agreements related to the global commons of biodiversity and soil (UNFCCC, UNCBD, UNCCD), identifies some of Ostrom’s principles in their design: “‘ad[a]ption of operational rules to the local level’ is partly safeguarded by national strategies and action plans and ‘monitoring’ is provided by member states and the Secretariats of the Conventions” (Eser 2019: 17). But she also identifies some deficiencies related to the lack of “graduated sanctions” letting the non-compliance of the agreements without major consequences. Moreover, she points out the lack of “establishment of nested enterprises” (ibid.), in the sense that governance activities are not organised considering multiple layers and designed considering participation across governance levels (Ostrom 1990). In addition, regarding multiple-use commons Buck’s framework sheds light on the complex in5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 68 terdependencies between the global commons and the socio-economic systems, and therefore on the urgent need to also analyse and adapt or change the rules governing these systems. Multiple-use commons are defined as “resources that are used for different types of extractive and non-extractive purposes by different stakeholder groups and are managed under a mixture of property right regimes” (Stein and Edwards 1999: 242). Biodiversity, forest and oceans are included in this category. Additionally, their use for different extractive purposes is directly related with other resource use, as is the case of forests and biodiversity, with land. One of the big challenges with the management of the global commons, is that contrary to single-use and local CPR, users do not have a direct feedback of the effects of their activities on the state of the global common. If we take as example the individual decisions of private owners to transform forest land into agricultural land, there is no direct feedback on the loss of forest’s ecosystem services (habitat, carbon fixation, climate regulation, etc.) and the consequences at the regional or global scale for human well-being. The indirect impacts of consumption decisions on biodiversity are even less clear and only perceivable via research and extensive communication efforts. In order to limit negative, usually indirect, often unperceived impacts on global commons new feedback loops need to be established. This requires adaptation and change of the rules influencing decision making in the socio-economic systems affecting the global commons. In terms of Buck’s framework it means that we also need to look at the constitutional choice level: formulation, governance, adjudication and modification (see Box 7), and it confirms the necessity for a fundamental transformation of the current socio-economic system diagnosed by the global assessment reports. International cooperation is necessary for such fundamental changes, as Mrema (2017) pointed out: due to the global scale of global commons, effective governance structures and monitoring are called for. Reaching international agreements, in particular when they involve constitutional choice, will be challenging, especially as such transformative change will cause resistance from powerful actors benefiting from the current setup. Therefore, it is crucial to address structural resistance, because otherwise necessary changes in regulation to enable biodiversity, forest, and ocean conservation will be hampered by special interest groups who are afraid that legal restrictions will make them worse off. Opportunities lie in the fact that overall productivity of well-managed commons is much higher than of overexploited ones and that interlinkages with other development goals are becoming increasingly apparent. 5 Recommendations and implications from global assessments – a synopsis 69 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations In this section, we use the conceptual framework (see Chapter 3) to analyse in what ways the (sometimes only implicit) recommendations of the international assessments conceptualize and address transformative change, and to identify gaps. We then address gaps identified for each of the three commons by drawing on supplementary literature and our own experience and judgement. In Section 6.4 we summarise recommendations with transformative potential seeking to minimise current and future pandemic risks. Section 6.5 takes a step back and draws first conclusions across all three commons analysed. Analysing and increasing transformative potential Analysis of targeted reports addressing gaps STEP 3 6.1 Analysing and complementing biodiversity-related recommendations How transformative are the recommendations? How can identified gaps be filled and inconsistencies resolved? 6.1.1 Assessing transformative potential and identifying gaps Transformative vision International assessments (especially the IPBES Global Assessment) provide a far-reaching critique of current production and consumption patterns, especially, but not limited to, the agri-food system. This shifts an important part of required change to consumption patterns and demand, particularly from wealthier consumers. This is notably different from past assessments where increasing populations and growing demand for more resource-intensive food – such as dairy and meat products – were taken as unquestionable economic drivers. The reports outline further elements that need to be changed; in several places, they fundamentally challenge the current economic paradigm. Most reports further emphasise the urgency of addressing inequality and working towards participatory decision-making. International cooperation is seen as an effective lever for transformation, so there are numerous demands and ideas how it could or should be enhanced. While reports recognise value plurality, diverse cosmologies and (indigenous) knowledge systems, they do not outline the transformative po69 70 tential of understanding other cultures explicitly. This could open the political space for radically different conceptualisations of a ‘good life’ and the role of nature for society. Besides modern resource exploitation and use systems, there are diverse further framings of human-environment relationships, some of which emphasise bio-cultural interdependence, or ‘convivencia’. These differently conceptualised links between values and management practices could provide alternative narratives and inform a transformative vision. The assessments, however, rarely address this potential explicitly. On how such fundamental changes could be brought about, the assessments provide an array of rather general suggestions such as a change of values and visions of a good quality of life, an evolution of the global economic and financial system, inclusive decision making, and increasing international collaboration. However, they do not provide a new narrative in terms of a compelling alternative to the current system, or novel paradigms beyond the need for transformative change and the belief that it can be brought about by an intelligent combination of existing policies and new initiatives as well as international cooperation in multiple fora. Transformative knowledge Most assessments also remain vague or silent on knowledge needs for transformation. This is surprising as many of them at the same time highlight the usefulness of policies, instruments, technical solutions and innovations (some of them in complex packages) that require an advanced technological and integrative understanding within and across sectors. Knowledge needs are mentioned for various areas, e.g. agriculture, yet what kind of knowledge would be conducive to enable transformative change remains unspecified. How to halt and reverse the continuously growing inequality is not well developed in the assessments and they do not provide concepts on how to address further root causes of biodiversity loss such as poor environmental accountability, e.g. in global finance, both corporate and intergovernmental. The GSDR (2019) is most explicit and outlines knowledge needs for transformation oriented towards achieving the SDGs, albeit in rather general terms. Regarding how to trigger transformation, it contains more specific recommendations on how to address fundamental changes in the agri-food system, such as “value chains and pro-poor markets for nutritious foods, including through naturally nutrient-dense foods […] and through biofortified staple foods” (ibid.: 130). While the report warns that resistance to change should be anticipated it does not identify corresponding knowledge needs. For other issues, some specific transformative knowledge needs are outlined and there are elaborate recommendations on how such knowledge could be made more available by technology transfer and through additional funding. Generating knowledge on how to encourage transformation and making it universally accessible is certainly a global challenge that requires international collaboration. Although calls for increasing international collaboration are quite prominent, there is little on transformative knowledge concerning biodiversity as global commons to be found in the assessments. Navigating the dynamics of transformation Ideas for what should be phased-in or -out can be found in the reports, but an overarching conceptualisation of transforming systems is not presented. Important proposals for breaking with the prevailing socio-economic models are the phasing out of pesticide use in agriculture and of harmful subsidies more broadly. Instead, agro-ecological approaches and nature-based solutions should be scaled up. Regarding the challenge of inequality, the reports state that market mechanisms must be reformed, but do not provide many detailed proposals. On the third core challenge presented in 4.1.2 (‘the lack of more determined, integrative and multilateral responses’), the expectation is that increased cooperation will create new opportunities for transformative change. While falling short of a full dynamic view, two important arguments are put forward in the reports: bottom-up initiatives should be encouraged, and private businesses can potentially become a motor of more vivid change dynamics. While many assessments clearly identify current production and consumption patterns as root cause and therefore as the system that needs to be phased-out, the fact that there is no compelling alternative narrative (see above ‘transformative vision’) makes it difficult to nurture, enhance, and accelerate alternative pathways. Consuming less, reducing food loss and waste or producing in a more biodiversity-friendly manner is not sufficiently mobilising as an alternative to still prevailing highly eco6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 70 71 nomic-growth-focussed development agendas in most parts of the world. Most global trends in the agri-food sector contribute to biodiversity loss. The IPBES Global Assessment suggests developing incentive programmes, certification and performance standards “and to enable internationally consistent taxation, supported by multilateral agreements and enhanced environmental monitoring and evaluation” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 21). While assessment reports mention that indigenous land use and traditional agricultural practices are often more biodiversity-friendly, the issue of persisting systemic pressures displacing more diversified smallholder production systems by increasing industrialised agriculture is not discussed in detail. The fact that supply and demand chains are often international and intercontinental makes tackling these issues extremely difficult. Vested interests in maintaining current patterns are acknowledged as tremendous challenges, without offering concrete ideas on how to deal with them. Assessments say surprisingly little about this major impediment to transformative dynamics, namely structural resistance to change and on how it can be overcome. In the IPBES Global Assessment, resistance is mentioned in different ways but mostly implicitly. It contains the call to address the harmful indirect drivers of nature deterioration and to protect “environmental legal frameworks against the pressure of powerful interest groups” (IPBES GA SPM 2019: 41). The WEF report (2020) does not address resistance at all which seems surprising given that its target audience are companies and stakeholders in the financial markets who often represent businesses that rely on or impact upon biodiversity. By presenting the consequences of biodiversity loss as well as actions to prevent it and not addressing structural resistance, the WEF report (ibid.) seems to imply that structural resistance can be overcome by merely presenting more information about the significance of biodiversity for business as well as pragmatically listing solutions and pathways. Emancipation and agency The extent to which the global assessment reports elaborate on emancipation and agency is mixed. Several reports highlight inequality as an important issue that needs to be better addressed in any sustainability transition. The possibility of ensuring one’s basic livelihood can be seen almost as a precondition to agency and emancipation; yet how to achieve this precondition does not feature very prominently. While there is unanimous agreement that the involvement of indigenous and local communities in political processes needs to be improved, they are not explicitly regarded as stimulators of transformative change or for the elaboration of different visions for the world. There is some recognition that locally specific, customary governance and management modes are valid alternatives. Although land right issues are at the core of many environmental degradation problems, and mentioned in several assessment reports it is presented mainly in an instrumental way. However, how to achieve clear property rights (which may well be collective), and how to address inequality, also regarding the distribution of land and land rights, is only addressed at the margin. How securing ownership and tenure rights, particularly of the local population, creates incentives to conserve the land and how to prevent destructive short-term land use by large (foreign) companies, as well as how to significantly increase accountability in economic sectors with heavy environmental footprints are open questions. Some assessments see participation in an equally functional way, serving mainly to increase the acceptability of necessary measures; at the other end of the spectrum, the IPBES reports strongly emphasise the benefits of diverse perspectives, democratic decision-making regarding transformative change trajectories, and the positive mutual reinforcement of poverty-reduction and biodiversity-conservation efforts. Transformative governance: actions and solutions Most of the recommended interventions are well-established and long-known. What is comparatively new is a strong agreement across reports that diets, supply chains and agricultural production practices need to change towards more diversified plant-based diets, less synthetic pesticide use, and more equitable access to supply infrastructure as well as increasing product certification. While there are many general ideas, there is often a lack of concrete proposals on how to get started or operationalise desired changes, and on which actors are in a position to do so (an exception here is the IPBES Global Assessment (2019), see Appendix 5 ). An avenue that would deserve further elaboration is the establishment of alternative economic measures and theories. 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 71 78 The phasing in pathway is essentially about exploring and establishing promising combinations of state-of-the-art knowledge and technologies with regionally attuned, tried and tested agri-food systems. This refers to production techniques (agro-ecological systems, sustainable intensification), organisational structures (small-scale, cooperative, large-scale), as well as to processing, logistics and marketing. While, for example, producer cooperatives have been successfully established in many countries for cash crops such as coffee or cocoa, their potential for also improving food production has been undervalued (Shumeta and D’Haese 2018). Learning from experimentation and pilot experiences will be key before accelerating dissemination of phase-in-actions. In Box 9, we outline avenues we consider promising along the phase in pathways. Box 9: Actions to phase in a sustainable agri-food system • Large-scale commercial agriculture must introduce production methods with very low carbon/water/soil/biodiversity footprints, looking for sustainable intensification with ambitious standards that increase over time. • Simultaneously, small-scale agriculture in many areas of the world needs better support in terms of securing land rights, access to seeds, credit, extension and markets. Farmers’ agency should be restored or improved, and particular support is needed for agro-ecological approaches to enhance both production and well-being (TEEB Agri-Food 2018). • To make sustainable land management practices more attractive to farmers – especially those requiring high upfront investments – higher incentives should be offered to scale up innovative ideas. In particular, “Agri-environment schemes and Payments for Ecosystems Services (PES) are obvious candidates...” (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 71f.). • Redirect finance to invest more in sustainable alternatives based on more comprehensive regulation and increased transparency of sustainability impacts of different investment, as recommended by several assessment reports. This can be an important component of agrifood transformation, especially for accelerating the spread of new production systems (see section on finance above). • The establishment of certification, also recommended by the assessments, should be accompanied by legislation requiring traceability for supply chains, and making producers accountable for social and environmental impacts (see Section 6.2.2, where this is discussed for deforestation-free supply chains). In many instances regulating against unsustainable practices is more effective than certifying compliance with sustainable practises. In both cases, clear standards are needed that really make a difference rather than promoting marginal changes. • All of the above requires reorienting research capacities to achieve sustainable intensification (internalising full costs), to adapt agro-ecological practises for different locations and to generate the transformative knowledge for system change. At the end of the phasing in trajectory, we envision agricultural production without significant externalities, secured by the possibility to hold actors accountable for any remaining impacts they or a company in their supply chain generate. 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 78 79 The two complementary pathways for achieving transformative change face substantial challenges: Phasing out unsustainable practices means addressing the well-articulated, powerful, and often historically-justified interests of those who will lose out if change happens. There are different strategies to approach this from fully compensating any additional costs farmers may have to incur to obliging them to change by stricter regulation. Agro-industries may need an overhaul of business models and might need clear obligations as well as support to make the necessary transitions. The most challenging actors are the large multi-nationals providing the entire package of inputs needed for the current and largely unsustainable production practises. In turn, phasing in sustainable alternatives is about scaling up and stabilising what turned out to be successful pilot studies or experiments. The Committee on World Food Security specifies principles that would support a move towards transformative change. These principles include the engagement and empowerment of young people as drivers of change in agri-food systems; respect of traditional knowledge, especially of smallholder farmers; support for diversity and innovation; participatory and transparent policy, grievance mechanisms accessible to all; and regular assessment of changes and impacts (CFS 2014). Both processes imply and require institutional changes and new and different rules. Such actions will bring major change – and with it come major risks. Therefore, overall sustainability conditions should be embraced and taken seriously as “bottom line” guidance for efforts aimed at changing the system. They should include at least: respect of planetary boundaries, provision of living wages or incomes, concern for future generations, and life in dignity. And they will have to be continuously reviewed and adjusted if necessary. Box 10: Powerful resistance limiting the right to propagate seeds Farmers, often women, have for thousands of years selected and propagated seeds that work well in their specific conditions. At the same time, selling seeds as well as the chemical inputs these potentially high yielding varieties require, is at the core of the business model of several multi-national companies. Especially regional free trade agreements and patents claimed by these companies, increasingly lead to legal regulations that no longer allow propagating seeds. This pressures farmers to accept and use seed material (International Monsanto Tribunal 2017b) which – at worst – prohibits conservation of agro-biodiversity and conditions farmers into seed varieties provided by large enterprises which require high amounts of chemical inputs and are not well adapted to their specific locations. This not only obliges farmers to take high financial risks but aggravates (agro-) biodiversity loss. In light of climate change not only local but global food security would strongly benefit from reversing this trend. Locally adapted varieties able to produce well under increasingly variable conditions can best be achieved and maintained by protecting the agency of local farmers, women, indigenous groups and others and by supporting them to (continue) “to adapt varieties to changing local contexts in a participatory manner, possibly as public-private-farmer partnerships where farmers take on the role as co-creators and partners” (GAFF 2016: 16). Farmer-managed seed systems should be recognised as a viable and coherent alternative to corporate seed systems. For this, “national/regional networks of practitioners in the management of biodiversity for food and agriculture, [including] farmers’ seed producer networks” (GAFF 2019: 16), require legal and logistical support. The intellectual property and trade laws and the limits these impose should be closely monitored. Advocacy in form of an “independent Civil Society Mechanism (CSM) for the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA)” (Mooney and Global Alliance for the Future of Food 2016: 19) has been proposed and would allow farmers, women and indigenous people access to the relevant high-level international decision-making processes. This echoes recommendations in a number of international treaties and agreements, e.g. the UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (GAFF 2019: 11). 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 79 80 Knowledge for transforming the agri-food system Transformative knowledge production implies the pursuit of more issue-driven reflection and exchange. Thus, knowledge needs to be (re-)connected to practice: For example, the Global Alliance for the Future of Food emphasises that “knowledge and practices of smallholder farmers, particularly those who are women and Indigenous Peoples, are central to the survival of local seed systems” (GAFF 2016: 5). Knowledge is not disconnected from agricultural practice: agricultural practice maintains the knowledge itself, but also the outcome of this knowledge in action, i.e. the survival of local seed systems. Similarly, the integration of knowledge from different sources is a central feature of future resilient systems: different aspects, but also different ways of knowing need to be brought together – both, in terms of procedures but also in terms of substance. This includes “new ways of collecting, analysing, and sharing evidence, as well as knowledge exchange based on transdisciplinary, cross-scalar, and participatory approaches” (GAFF 2019: 5). Both these requirements are starting to be met by an increasing amount of transdisciplinary and applied research, sometimes also involving indigenous knowledge. But in many countries neither research nor extension services are currently in a position to support the knowledge demands that will arise on the production side. Supporting such research but especially also knowledge exchange can therefore support transformation. In our view, this also includes the challenge of prioritising and specifying essential knowledge needs for transformation – in view of the potential overkill of research demands. From the suggestions discussed above a set of questions specific to transformation arise, e.g.: how to address resistance and inertia to change in current agri-food systems? • How to encourage value changes deemed necessary for consumers to change their habits? • How to scale up successful pilots, niche experiments and pioneer land use models? • How to combine and implement various policy instruments for transforming agrifood systems so that sustainable practises become the norm rather than the certified exception? • How to address resistance e.g. avoid that powerful companies benefitting from the current system prevent changes? • How to select interventions at different locations along international agricultural value chains in order to successively enable transformation of the global agri-food system? Supporting local/regional food sovereignty (GAFF 2017) could be a promising avenue especially in the early stages of global transformation. For this, farmer organisations and social movements have to participate at policy fora at various levels and engage in policies that affect their food systems, including farmers’ abilities to freely produce and exchange seed (GAFF 2019). Local producer initiatives should link up with urban activists – both to bridge knowledge gaps and to increase the potential for powerful alliances (Vecchio 2012). Consumers, who understand where their food comes from, are in a much better position to transform their habits and to help create the ‘safe spaces’ for experimenting with new alternatives. The role of protected areas The role of protected areas in the discourse on agri-food systems requires special attention. Several voices argue e.g. that protected areas “have an essential role in conserving and restoring our natural capital”, should be “extended and integrated into the surrounding land and sea” (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 74). This is echoed by the current draft of the CBD’s Global Biodiversity Framework, setting the targets for biodiversity conservation for the next decade. Protected areas generally require “[m]ore investment” (ibid.: 71) and their management should closely involve local populations (ibid.: 74). Demands are also made to establish “clear boundaries for conservation and agriculture (known as ‘land-use zoning’)” (ibid.: 73, emphasis ours). The interlinkages of agricultural transformation and biodiversity conservation occur in several different ways and are embedded in broader land-use decisions. Conservation narratives so far have payed limited attention to the interactions in the broader landscape: neither how a more sustainable land use supports conservation nor how conservation can support sustainable land use. Similarly, the role of inequality has not been sufficiently addressed in both conservation and broader land-use planning. The currently envisaged target to effectively protect 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 80 81 30 percent of landand seascapes by 2030 (CBD 2019) cannot be achieved by protecting nature without considering local needs much more explicitly. So far, ‘pro-people conservation’ has mainly focussed on improved buffer zone livelihoods and on the business case of nature tourism with mixed results in terms of both livelihoods and conservation outcomes. If 30 percent of national territories are to be placed under some protective regime a broader approach will be needed. Instead, conservation expertise should inform development ambitions more generally: What should be protected – species, habitats, ecosystem services, how – no use, limited extraction of wild products, sustainable agriculture/agroforestry, and how is the local population involved in deciding on the role of conservation for local development? Thus, we propose to reframe conservation efforts as key inputs to the much-needed societal reorientation towards sustainable and equitable use of landscapes. For the tropics, plausible biodiversity scenarios suggest that land-sparing approaches (dedicated areas exclusively for conservation) may deliver better short-term results for biodiversity, while land-sharing (combining agriculture and conservation in the same area) may outperform it over time (Hill et al. 2015). Given that for example one third of Africa’s human population lives either inside or within 10km distance to a protected area (Berghöfer et al. 2021), protected areas and in particular their expansion should be examined in terms of societal development, sustainable land use and local livelihoods. Conclusion While the global assessments analysed (see Section 6.1.1) emphasised that consumption and production patterns need to be fundamentally restructured, they do not elaborate how this can be achieved. Additional literature outlines the need to move away from the paradigms of economic growth and resource efficiency to ideas of social well-being and resource-sufficiency. In other words, we need to change the basic rules of how economic activities make use of global commons. This requires a transformation of our institutions and systems, with the financial sector seen as particularly relevant. Transformative knowledge is needed that transcends disciplinary silos to understand which combination of interventions can unfold into self-sustaining system change toward sustainability. Furthermore, not only the dynamics of system transformation must be understood, but also resistance of powerful actors to change must be overcome. The agri-food-sector is identified unanimously as one of the most important drivers of loss and degradation and therefore in need of transformative change. Additional reports propose agro-ecology and sustainable intensification as options for significantly reducing negative impacts on biodiversity and the environment while at the same time increasing farmers resilience especially vis-à-vis climate change. We have identified and outlined ideas and recommendations on measures that can be expected to encourage such transformative change. The measures proposed are far-reaching and have implications from access to land over trade agreements to protected area policies. The aims are to radically change production practices to fully internalise social and environmental costs, to reconceptualise the role of protected areas in agricultural landscapes and to change and reduce demand. Particular attention should be paid to supporting smallholder farmers by securing their rights. This addresses several sustainability goals: securing access to nutritious food for a significant proportion of the world population, causing less harm to biodiversity, and reducing inequality. Gaps remain concerning how to best encourage the changes in consumption, identified as necessary preconditions. 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 81 82 6.2 Analysing and complementing forest-related recommendations In Section 6.2.1, we first analyse to what extent the (sometimes only implicit) recommendations of the assessments for forests have transformative potential. We evaluate them using our conceptual framework and identify what elements are missing in each of the building blocks. Here we present a summary and appraisals, the full analysis can be found in Appendix 10. In Section 6.2.2, we then draw on supplementary literature to address the gaps identified. 6.2.1 Assessing transformative potential and identifying gaps Generally, all assessment reports studied recommend some elements of transformative change to address forest loss. However, the most central recommendations can hardly be considered transformative by themselves: reforestation, increased conservation efforts, forest restoration, and an improved enforcement of existing laws and regulations would undoubtedly improve the state of the world’s forests without transforming or even questioning the existing system(s). Yet, a successful sustainability transition without these elements is hardly conceivable. There is a clear understanding that fundamental change is necessary to address the first core challenge, i.e. continuing forest loss and degradation – in particular by reducing demand for agricultural land. The suggestions of how this could be achieved chiefly consist in appealing to all involved parties’ social and environmental responsibility. Consumers should change their diets, reduce food waste and buy deforestation-free products; producers and the finance sector should turn to environmentally and socially responsible business models. Three main strategies are proposed to policy makers: expanding certification schemes for deforestation-free products, promoting sustainable production, and redirecting harmful subsidies and incentives towards supporting the conservation and restoration of forests. While it is made evident that deforestation cannot be tackled by better forest management practices alone and that other sectors, in particular agriculture and food consumption in wealthier countries, need to change, the assessment reports do not outline a clear vision or formulate an appealing new narrative beyond a general call for responsible action. In response to the second core challenge, i.e. competing interests around forests, the main proposal for changing the system is to improve coordination and integration across sectors (public, private, non-profit), disciplines/thematic areas (water, soil, climate, etc.) and industries (forestry, energy, agriculture, etc.). Thus, different spatial (from local to global) and temporal scales should be integrated. This includes the need for policy instruments that can operate across scales – such as international climate agreements that influence the implementation of different interventions at local scales – and points in time. In the reports, most recommendations remain general but some specify mainstreaming biodiversity concerns into forest management practices. Two reports suggest setting up “new multilateral agreements to protect the largest tropical rainforests of the planet” (GSDR 2019: 168) and a comprehensive global forest strategy that encourages all actors to jointly “preserve primary forests, sustainably manage production forests, and restore natural forests in degraded landscapes” (NYDF 2019: 82). The reports, however, struggle to outline clearly how such change could be triggered beyond improving coordination and changing incentives. While all of the above-mentioned suggestions are useful, they will unlikely be sufficient to address the change in agri-food systems considered necessary in the calls for transformation. This finding is supported by our assessment of transformative dynamics, where all reports outline the first steps of what needs to increase and what needs to decrease, but do not offer comprehensive recommendations to policy on how to support this change beyond redirecting incentives towards more sustainable actions. Our overall analysis also acknowledges the importance of not only improving productivity and access to resources for poorer groups (given their critical role in alleviating poverty), but also the need for honest and far-ranging involvement of local and indigenous communities (considering also a gender and age balanced representa6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 82 83 tion) in forest policies and programmes (co-design). This is portrayed as crucial, even where it goes against the vested interests of more powerful actors. The reports point out that enabling rural, marginalised people to increasingly take their destiny into their own hands may benefit the world’s forest ecosystems as well as helping to fuel the shift towards sustainability. However, beyond the important call for addressing land conflicts, securing tenure rights and access to forests, there is little indication of how agency could be achieved, nor of how the agency of currently marginalised interests can be encouraged to lead towards more sustainable outcomes for forests and biodiversity. When analysing the concrete actions and solutions proposed in the assessment reports that appear to hold the highest transformative potential, the questions of “what” kind of instruments are needed and “who” should act are often answered, at least roughly or implicitly. However, “how” it should be done is mostly under-specified. Overall, and perhaps due to the generalising and political nature of these assessment reports, there are not enough operational suggestions – particularly to policy makers at all levels. Stronger awareness of the interlinkages between North and South is needed, and of the fact that structural change is a prerequisite for transformation dynamics to gain momentum. Most importantly, appeals to increase desired behaviour based on responsibility alone are unlikely to have sufficient effect as long as unsustainable behaviour is cheaper, easier, and continues to be allowed. Even if some privileged or highly responsible actors change their behaviour, others will presumably replace them in pursuing unsustainable practices. The analysis of several of the projects in Chapter 7 reflects similar findings, in particular the Unlocking Forest Finance project designed to significantly reduce deforestation in the Amazon (see the example of the project analysis in Chapter 7 Box 13). Summary In summary, our analysis shows a clear agreement across assessment reports that fundamental change is needed, and the recommendation sections contain numerous elements that could contribute to transformations for sustainability. Sufficient knowledge appears to be available on what needs to change, but little has been put into action; the final stages of transition remain under-conceptualised in the current assessments. The reports, by and large, fail to provide operational suggestions on the implementation level. 6.2.2 Options to increase transformative potential In this section, we present suggestions how the forest-related recommendations could be complemented based on further literature and our own experience and judgement. We will follow the framework on transformative change once more, this time with an emphasis on concrete solutions (see building block 5 of our framework) that address supply chains, finance-related mechanisms, and international cooperation. These three leverage points most prominently emerged from our qualitative content analysis. The analysis of more targeted studies, which – unlike the assessment reports – are usually not negotiated in intergovernmental settings, offers helpful suggestions for some of the identified gaps. One example is a series of global reports by IUFRO, the International Union of Forest Research Organizations. These reports result from the work of task forces and cover a broad spectrum of topics from a forestry perspective (e.g. alleviation of poverty, water, illegal timber trade, food security). Another example is the 2019 WPN report, commissioned by the working group “Global Commons” of Germany’s “Science Platform Sustainability 2030” (short: WPN) and written by international forestry experts from the University of Freiburg, Germany (WPN 2019). Recommendations made in these studies often go in similar directions regarding each of the five building blocks of our framework (see Chapter 3.2), but are more concrete and detailed than those given in the global assessment reports. Blocks 1–4: Vision, knowledge, dynamics, and emancipation In their 2019 text on forests as global commons, the WPN authors mention the need for transformative change at several points, and it is stated quite prominently in the conclusion (WPN 2019). However, they decided to focus the report on concrete steps rather than developing a grand narrative, highlighting “possibilities with a realistic potential to at least push global forest governance a bit into the transformative change direction” (ibid.: 51). They advocate for international policy alignment, engaging the private sector “within a strong regulatory framework”, and intensifying action on the ground (ibid.: 51f.). Most reports from the IUFRO global series do not explicitly mention the concept of transformative change. Still, they explore the interlinkag6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 83 84 es between forests and various topics showing transformative potential, for example, forests contributions to/impacts on SDG 1 (“No poverty”). In this context, the IUFRO world series vol. 39 (“Forests, trees and the eradication of poverty”) references multiple strategies to achieve zero-deforestation commitments while maintaining or increasing the production of forest commodities by decoupling commodity growth and deforestation, which can be seen as a vision for a transformed economic system (IUFRO vol. 39 2020). Similarly, the vision for forestry developed in another report contains elements of transformation: governance actors should create a “framework that captures all forest values and cross-sectoral linkages and ensures that they are considered in decisions about forest policy and management”, which are adapted to the realities of complex and fragmented governance from international to local levels, across ecosystems and policy sectors (IUFRO vol. 28 2010: 39). Regarding the need to address the high demand for agricultural land which drives deforestation, the IUFRO vol. 33 report (2015) (“Forest, trees, and landscapes for food security and nutrition”) suggests the promotion of local food systems as another visionary and potentially game-changing approach. Although food security is dependent on issues of sustainability, availability, access and utilisation, and not production alone, it is evident that a “new agriculture” (Steiner 2011: 28) needs to be found to feed the world’s population both efficiently and equitably. It needs to produce food where it is needed, especially in areas where agriculture is dominated by small farms (e.g. according to Altieri (2009), two thirds of African farms are smaller than two hectares) and where negligible quantities of external inputs are used (where agriculture is “organic by default”, Bennett and Franzel 2013). The United Nations’ (2011) vision of an agro-ecological approach that combines biodiversity concerns with food production demands, provides a compelling vision of future food production (IUFRO vol. 33 2015: 122) (compare Section 6.1.2 above for further details on transforming the agri-food system). On the topic of transformative knowledge, the WPN report declares that sufficient knowledge on forest protection is clearly available: “There is no justification for policy makers, businesses and citizens to further postpone urgently required action with the argument that we have to wait for new scientific and practical insights. The facts are on the table.” (WPN 2019: 49) This sentiment is echoed by the IUFRO vol. 31 report (2012) (“Understanding relationships between biodiversity, carbon and people”). While the knowledge available about the impacts of REDD+ initiatives on biodiversity and forest ecosystems may be incomplete, they conclude, our “current understanding is sufficient to significantly improve efforts to minimize environmental harm and maximize multiple benefits” (ibid.: 140). Nevertheless, the WPN experts recognise a need for “new knowledge systems” built on interand transdisciplinary practices (WPN 2019: 49). Promising “initiatives for the needed societal transformation” (ibid.: 50) should be systematically evaluated. This is based on the conviction that such transformation, if successful, will emerge from the combination of “a myriad of smaller actions in a large diversity of fields including all actor groups” (ibid.), in line with the notion of incrementalism introduced above (see Section 3.1). One IUFRO report explicitly emphasises the importance of “progressive incremental change” supported and directed by policy learning (Cashore and Howlett 2007; IUFRO vol. 28 2010: 38). The WPN study makes the case for a profound realignment of how research is funded and evaluated. It should move “away from the support of disciplinary research principally aiming at academic merits[,] or technology-oriented programmes driven by job and growth needs of high-income countries, towards a funding that valorises long-term economic perspectives, environmental wisdom, and the needs and interests of local resource users” (WPN 2019: 50). This statement outlines a holistic transformative vision in which academic knowledge on forest ecologies and economies is embedded in grand narratives of societal transformation – something that is largely absent from the global assessment reports we studied. An important aspect related to the building block 3 (dynamics of transformation) is the exploration of different approaches mentioned by WPN above, another is adaptive and reflexive learning. In this line, IUFRO argues that the type of policy learning needed (instrumental learning) would provide evidence about the effectiveness of particular policy instruments and would constantly be monitored and updated. However, current forest governance agreements are not oriented in this direction. If instrumental learning is to take place successfully, reformed international forest governance arrangements would need to bridge the wide gaps that have opened 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 84 85 up between high-level negotiation on one side of the divide and experimentation on the ground on the other (IUFRO vol. 28 2010: 138). Knowledge gaps prevent us from fully understanding the dynamic links between people and forests, and with these an understanding of better inclusion and cooperation in transformative efforts. A continuous spatio-temporal database that allows the assessment of the relationship between forests and poverty is lacking (IUFRO vol. 39 2020). More “adequate monitoring” capacities would equally be required to keep track of dynamic changes “in forest species, processes and ecosystems” (IUFRO vol. 22 2009: 141). The IUFRO authors further highlight the need for an evaluation of forest and tree-related policies including synergies and discordances with other measures, which would allow continuously reassessing what measures are to be scaled up and phased-out, respectively. The IUFRO vol. 35 global report (2016) (“Illegal logging and related timber trade – dimensions, drivers, impacts and responses”) points out that a dearth of precise and comparable definitions, metrics, and data largely “hampers efforts to tackle effectively illegal logging and related timber trade” (ibid.: 136) which ought to be destabilised and phased-out. “To institutionalize and enhance the participation of forest dwellers [...,] instruments such as public hearings, local/rural councils, network approaches of NGOs and local farmers [...] are needed [...]. It might be useful to look [at] processes that already achieved a stronger participation of local stakeholders, such as the Committee on World Food Security and processes for the devolution of tenure rights including the Rights and Resources Initiative and the Tenure Facility.” (WPN 2019: 49f.) To support and broaden these processes, the IUFRO vol. 33 report (2015) suggests community participation, specifically in the form of institutional decentralisation, as an important tool of forest governance reform (ibid.: 133). Three forms of decentralisation are distinguished: transfer of rights to locally-elected governments (democratic decentralisation), transfer of power to local offices of the national government (deconcentration), and transfer of rights to local communities (devolution) (ibid.). Likewise, local actors should thus become engaged in decision-making “through locally-elected authorities to ensure accountable governance” (ibid.). In addition, IUFRO vol. 22 (2009: 198) advocates for “interdependent bottom-up policy networks” which should be better able to address local forest challenges given that “local authorities [...] have better knowledge of local needs” than central government agencies. Blocks 5: Actions for supply chains, finance and incentives, international and development cooperation The IUFRO vol. 39 (2020) on poverty recommends building on three core principles for sustainable intensification that, when combined with building blocks 1 to 4, may increase the potential for sustainability transformations in the forest sector: • promote the certification of deforestation-free products, e.g. for palm oil and soy; • increase funding for sustainable production (demand and financing); • improved governance around property rights, jurisdictional approaches, illegality and enforcement (ibid.: 180ff.). These principles are roughly reflected in the remainder of this section, as we address supply-chain approaches first, then turn to actions and solutions concerning the financial sector and changing incentives, and finally reflect on governance aspects as they should be addressed in international and development cooperation. All three aspects will be picked up and further developed in Chapter 7 where we reflect on lessons learned from past projects. Supply chain approaches Supply chains must be overhauled to address one root cause of unsustainable practices that endangers the global commons: the demand for commodities. In fact, the steps presented here apply to all the global commons discussed in this study. For both biodiversity and forests, agricultural expansion is a main threat; for marine and coastal ecosystems, overfishing and increasing mining are prime examples. A successful transformation of supply chains will require (1) a strong regulatory framework set by governments, complemented by (2) the establishment of standards and certifications, and jointly implemented through (3) reliable partnerships between different actors around all related supply chains. The WPN study explains what governments can do to influence business practices in the first of these three steps, using regulation to guide the desired transformations to sustainability: 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 85 86 “States should create an enabling governance environment to stimulate the private sector to engage and invest in pro-sustainability activities by providing the operating framework for investors, multinational companies and medium sized enterprises. This requires setting norms and connecting financial and legal regulations, as well as effective non-compliance sanctions. This should be combined with parallel fiscal incentives to penalize non-sustainable resourcing, at best at a global scale.” (WPN 2019: 50, emphasis ours) The Dasgupta Review advertises another potentially transformative idea when it emphasises “that markets alone are inadequate for protecting ecosystems from overuse” (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 71) due to imperfect knowledge. The study recommends relying on “quantity restrictions (e.g. on extraction or pollution)” rather than taxation to better account for externalities; these restrictions should be “informed by science and supported by legislation” (ibid., emphasis ours). In the WPN recommendations, the option of a “globally agreed right of nature as a basis for [bi-,] multilateral or transnational global forest governance” (WPN 2019: 50, emphasis ours) is brought up as an approach worth exploring between international organisations, NGOs, and the private sector. Taken together, these statements amount to governments to support and guide a fundamental shift in how the private sector can operate, and simultaneously say what should be transformed by specifying desired future behaviour and making current unsustainable behaviour much less competitive. The aspect of enforcement mechanisms including sanctions, an important element of accountable governance, is also addressed in the WPN report (ibid.: 51). To motivate companies towards more forest-responsible behaviour, states should moreover “formulate a demanding claim to business and trade, for developing sustainable finance, Corporate Social Responsibility and due diligence for sustainable agricultural commodities. In the long term, a corporate charter approach could be developed as an instrument of supporting environmental welfare public interests against private profit interests”. (Ibid.: 51) On the other hand, small-scale producers should not be overburdened with regulations and bureaucracy if the empowerment ideal of transformative change is taken seriously. To support them, more “appropriate market regulations” should be established, including: a) low regulatory costs of market entry (e.g. no registration fees, low cost management plans, no bribes required); b) no producer/consumer subsidies (and hence greater competitiveness for small-scale producers); c) a low-cost regulatory environment (e.g. few permits required); and d) secure local rights for forest products and environmental services (Scherr et al. 2004: 361). In the international arena, trade agreements should (and do, in fact) increasingly include environmental sustainability provisions, and the same can be said about international aid spending (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 74). For instance, the EU has been urged to make sustainable food systems an explicit objective of its free trade agreements and to negotiate relevant sustainability provisions (IPES-Food 2019). The European Green Deal includes the ambition to lead by example and initiate important changes, which could greatly enhance prospects for transformative change. Innovation in trade practices “can support a shift to sustainability” (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 74) if costs along the entire supply chain are internalised. As an example, from the forest domain, the European Commission has presented a legislative proposal on deforestation in the second quarter of 2021. This is related to an evaluation of two existing instruments (EC 2020): the ‘Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade Regulation’ (FLEGT) and the ‘EU Timber Regulation’ (EUTR). The options discussed range from mandatory due diligence (deforestation risk assessment of products throughout the supply chain) to mandatory certification standards (which would effectively prohibit importing non-certified commodities and products) to mandatory labelling (telling consumers which products might be associated with deforestation). The appeal to more responsible consumer behaviour at the end of supply chains, mentioned earlier regarding agricultural value chains, is echoed for the mining sector in a recent Chatham House research paper: “Raising the profile of forest-risk mineral commodities could help build consumer demand for low-impact, low-carbon metals. [...] GHG emissions associated with 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 86 87 forest loss and degradation should be incorporated into supply chain standards and market mechanisms, alongside impacts on biodiversity, land and water” (Bradley 2020: 2). The required “forest-smart” mining approaches and standards have not yet been developed or explored in detail (World Bank 2019: xii, NYDF 2019: 56). However, as an additional oversight mechanism, citizens could be better empowered to monitor companies that are “operating in agriculture and land-related activities” (Oxfam 2020: 55). In general, actions needed to effectively change the demand side as a driver of deforestation and biodiversity loss remain ill-defined in the current literature. Increasing consumer awareness and a growing set of “niche markets” (Oxfam 2020: 59) are slowly emerging but will require political backing to develop sustainable alternatives at scales to have an impact. For example, some current visions of deforestation-free supply chains focus on developing “short supply chains and local markets [...] that draw on local and regional qualities” (ibid., emphasis ours). This is the case for the regionalisation of feed production in the livestock sector. While such regionalisation processes could significantly diminish deforestation pressure, a change in consumption patterns would also be needed to ensure adequate supply of the products when production costs increase (Deppermann et al. 2018). Finance and incentive-based approaches Finance and incentive-based approaches will similarly require a combination of regulation, standard-setting, and effective partnerships between government authorities, private companies, and non-profit organisations in order to make a difference for the world’s forests. Global Canopy, a think tank, targets financial actors (such as banks and insurers) as potential agents of change in the transition to deforestation-free economies. They argue that “financial institutions are exposed to deforestation in the Amazon via their loans and investments in companies that produce, trade or use commodities linked to deforestation, such as soy and beef” and point out that deforestation entails “physical, operational and reputational risks” to such investors (Forest 500/Global Canopy 2020: 1). In their own interest, such companies should therefore adopt and publish “clear [anti-]deforestation policies” (ibid.: 3). In terms of investments, the IUFRO vol. 39 (2020: 77) argues that the influence of international investment and trade could significantly contribute to a better allocation of benefits obtained from forests, reducing the inequality in the global distribution of prosperity. IUFRO vol. 34 (2015: 62) underscores that, ‘’given the necessary scale of investment globally to counteract centuries of degradation, multiple funding sources are required”. IUFRO also discusses further developing Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) schemes and market-based incentives (MBI) as possibly transformative financial instruments. The identification of specific ecosystem services and products to be restored (e.g., improved soil quality for increased productivity; enhanced water quantity and quality for human consumption; maintenance of biodiversity as basis for species conservation) could pave the way for large-scale investments. Potential benefits of restoration need to be identified and clearly communicated to and understood by decision-makers and society at large, so that concrete initiatives can be implemented (IUFRO vol. 34 2015). Complementally, IUFRO vol. 22 (2009: 195f.) declares a need to strengthen the communication between agriculture, forest and energy sectors and overcome the usual sector-by-sector approach in favour of a more holistic one. One important intersection is the nexus between forests and water. As IUFRO vol. 38 (2018) points out, there is a need to address this relationship more directly. “ To the best of our knowledge, no existing PES schemes or governance frameworks reflect the emerging broader understanding of forest-water dynamics. A next step in the MBI and PES discussion would be to try and classify existing forest-water strategies into different categories and to assess their effectiveness based on where they fit within this general framework, i.e. whether they are designed to address only the catchment or attempt to mobilise larger-scale (beyond-the-basin) visions of the hydrologic landscape, similarly to what has been achieved with international/global carbon-credit and REDD+ schemes. ” (ibid.: 164) The report adds that market-based instruments and PES schemes are only one way to address the desired shift from profit-oriented towards sustainability-oriented strategies; thus, there is a need for different approaches (ibid.: 165). Similarly, IUFRO vol. 39 (2020: 180ff.) highlights the 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 87 94 However, the HLP Blue Paper on Ocean Transition (HLP SOE OT 2019) mentions an institutional gap with more transformative potential: the need to share information on the ocean and coasts through a knowledge commons accessible to everyone, also called the democratisation of ocean knowledge. Digitalisation is believed to spawn the highest transformative potential since the industrial revolution, it is even called the “Fourth Industrial Revolution” (WEF 2020: 16). Currently, however, possession of knowledge in the marine sector and the sovereignty of its interpretation are not coordinated. Therefore, expanding access to knowledge, also in digital form, and enabling all countries and affected communities to make meaningful use of this information is a global task with transformative potential. Opportunities to propel digitalisation in the marine realm relate to e.g. surveillance, spatial ecosystem monitoring, fisheries, more transparent market access, tracking of fish along the value-chain, etc. While information is increasingly available this does not mean it actually leads to improved implementation and enforcement. Similarly, the increasing data availability does not mean all relevant stakeholders can interpret and make use of it. While access to (digital) information can change power relations, it is a necessary albeit often not sufficient condition. A process towards sustainable ocean development must therefore include connecting the variety of stakeholders and making the existing knowledge accessible to enable empowerment and agency for transformation. Given the wide scope of challenges for sustainable development in the marine realm, recommendations from the global assessment reports and other publications are either rather generic or very sector-specific. Since sustainable measures usually compete with less sustainable practices, phasing out the latter is a prerequisite for long-term success, but often not explicitly addressed. For example, concerning marine pollution, the global assessments recommend the management of pollutant input pathways – for instance by “educating farmers, promoting good agricultural practices that result in less nutrient runoff, and monitoring what happens to agricultural runoff alongside wastewater discharges” (WOA 2016: 20: 74). However, such measures leave the decision largely to farmers’ goodwill and focus on only a portion of the root causes. The HLP Blue Paper, “Leveraging Multi-Target Strategies to Address Plastic Pollution in the Context of an Already Stressed Ocean” (HLP SOE PP 2020), goes further and recommends both the adoption of green chemistry practices and new materials but also the phasing out of unsustainable practices with regulatory measures like banning/limiting the use of chemicals of concern or hazardous and hardto-manage materials. Thus, stronger measures than educating producers or consumers are listed, for example imposing fees on single-use plastics or other high leakage items, or supporting policies that allow personal container use in shopping and dining, and measures which support recovering and recycling of materials (for example through implementing extended producer responsibility laws) in order to reduce the solid waste in the first place. Assessments and reports agree on the usefulness of creating inclusive governance processes by incorporating local voices and visions into plans for sustainable ocean development at all scales and the support of bottom-up collectives and local initiatives is strongly recommended. In the HLP Blue Paper on ocean transition, such initiatives are seen as the places for niche innovations which “can demonstrate through trial and error that alternatives [to existing non-sustainable practises] are possible” (HLP SOE OT 2020: 14). Empowerment can also take place in moving towards rights-based fishery management, including frameworks that provide a platform for co-management, cooperatives and local ownership and stewardship. To integrate property rights with stewardship responsibilities through local use rights programmes is seen as a strong measure to claim agency over marine ecosystems from regional and local stakeholders. Positive examples are the Chilean Territorial Use Rights in Fisheries (TURF) and, in Brazil, the concept of Marine Extractive Reserves (WOA 2016), which present the solution of ‘protection by use’: in defined areas of the coast and coastal sea long-standing inhabitants are allowed to continue to benefit from the resources of the reserve, applying their traditional knowledge and practices, while protecting the area against non-traditional, new exploitation, and protecting the environment (Chamy 2002). In Brazil today, at least 113 RESEXs (extractive reserves) are implemented, 24 of them coastal or marine (IBAMA 2014, ISA 2020). In addition, inclusive approaches in collaboration with the private sector, incorporating the ‘polluter pays’ principle, are also seen as a powerful means of strengthening sovereignty in communities. of employees in the fisheries sector are employed in SSF, around 50 percent are women (FAO 2020: 177). 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 94 95 Block 5: Actions and interventions for transformative governance The management of ocean use is currently occurring at multiple levels – from the direct relationship between people and nature at the local level to global environmental governance frameworks. The ocean connects everyone – what a local fisherman thinks and does is not independent and disconnected from the global relationships that encompass the financial system, supply chains, and broader regulatory frameworks. The legal framework for the use and the protection of the ocean is very fragmented. One of the overarching instruments that can regulate processes in this highly connective ecosystem is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) which provides the legal framework for action at sea. So far, the protection of biodiversity has not been explicitly included in the regulations. When states committed at the 2012 UN Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio +20) to “address, on an urgent basis, the issue of the conservation and sustainable use of marine biological diversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction, including by taking a decision on the development of an international instrument under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea” (United Nations 2012: 31) several intergovernmental sessions were held to develop an international legally-binding instrument. Ongoing discussions and negotiations are addressing four important topics: 1. marine genetic resources, including benefit-sharing issues; 2. measures such as area-based management tools, including marine protected areas; 3. environmental impact assessments, and 4. capacity building and the transfer of marine technology. They also address issues such as general principles, definitions, responsibilities and compensations, and institutional and financial arrangements. This agreement could provide a framework to strengthen transformative and sustainable practices. However, even if the UN can provide a legal framework for sustainable ocean development, their ability to implement sustainable practices and shift economic procedures is limited. The need for multi-level governance approaches in the marine realm is a sine qua non condition to managing the ocean as a global common good. Therefore, the authors of the HLP Blue Paper on Ocean Transition (2020) recommend several opportunities for action that could strengthen transition processes whilst acknowledging the complexity of ocean governance: “[1.] support current UN ocean processes (e.g. ratification of UNCLOS); [2] reconfigure nationstate authority as it relates to the ocean (e.g., establish a global ‘ocean agency’ that supports polycentric, ‘bottom up’ governance innovations); [3.] support civil society’s ability to play a more significant role (e.g. by recognising access to a healthy environment as a human right and establishing a new ‘wiki-type’ interactive ocean knowledge commons for co-creating solutions); and [4.] integrate property rights with stewardship responsibilities (e.g. establish local user rights programs)“ (ibid.: 2). In this sense, local, national, and regional agreements and cooperation are important vehicles by which ocean governance can be significantly improved and transformative change could be initiated. Especially at a supranational level “coalitions of the willing” may support transformative change in providing role models also for ocean governance. Good experiences exist for example with some of the Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO), the OSPAR Commission, and the already mentioned High-Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy. An important element for the governance of sustainable ocean development is adequate funding, as “[t]he best ocean policies and practices can be undone by inadequate financing and by economic externalities that undermine conservation and sustainable use” (Sumaila et al. 2021: 9). As an example, not all of the declared Marine Protected Areas, covering 7.3 percent of the ocean surface, are adequately protected: currently only 2.3 percent is effectively protected and most of the remaining 5 percent is not protected at all. To increase the share of fully protected areas to 10 percent an estimated $7.7 billion is needed (HLP SOE OF 2019: 23). The HLP proposes an effective and comprehensive funding mechanism to finance actions required for integrated ocean management. Current investments fall well below what is needed for a transition to a sustainable ocean economy. In the last 10 years, less than 1 percent (US $ 13 billion) of the total estimated value of the ocean has been invested in sustainable projects through philanthropy and official development assistance (ibid.: 4). One 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 95 96 problem with public and private sector investments that have already been made is that a significant portion are directed toward large-scale economic activities that are often unsustainable and run against achieving Sustainable Development Goal 14. To steer financial flows more in the direction of sustainable ocean development, improved policies, incentives, tools and approaches need to be designed and established. Currently, several barriers prevent the growth of finance for the sustainable marine economy (see Figure 18). Figure 18: Barriers to marshalling adequate funding of the Sustainable Ocean Economy (SOE). Source: HLP SOE OF 2019: 7 The authors of the HLP Blue Paper on Ocean Finance make a number of suggestions how the challenges identified can be addressed through actions by governments, private entities and individuals (HLP SOE OF 2019). In order to set up a universal framework, new shared rules need to be defined and implemented. An essential element of a sustainable finance system will be the creation of an ocean-based finance taxonomy, providing classification systems of those activities considered to comply with strong principles for sustainability. This work can build on the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles (WWF 2018), developed by the European Commission, the World Wide Fund for Nature, the European Investment Bank and the Prince of Wales’ International Sustainability Unit. Also, the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Initiative, launched by the United Nations Environment Programme, as well as the European Union taxonomy with its blue components are able to influence the creation of a common global taxonomy, which will be required to standardise decision-making across global markets. The correction of market distortions can be achieved through taxation, the pricing of services, and the redirection of subsidies from harmful to more sustainable and equitable uses. Especially for the fisheries sector the HLP Blue Paper “Future of the Food from the Sea” (HLP SOE FFS 2019) recommends removing capacity-enhancing subsidies, particularly in fisheries which lack sound management. To counteract climate change impacts such as shifting fish stocks the HLP suggests developing fisheries permits that are tradeable across political boundaries as these would give future resource users access to fisheries not yet in their waters and incentivise good management. In light of experiences with REDD+ or certification schemes to counteract deforestation, good management should not be assumed but will have to be carefully regulated. In general, the HLP 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 96 97 recommends taking immediate action to avoid funding practices that support illegal and harmful activities, such as illegal fishing and pollution, and to work towards incentives for positive behaviour at both the macro and micro levels (HLP SOE OF 2019). One example is an industry-wide statement against IUU fishing, which was launched 2017, confirming the commitment of insurers, brokers and agents to not knowingly insure or facilitate the insuring of IUU fishing vessels (Miller et al. 2018). Considering food security, aquaculture is perceived as an alternative to traditional capture fisheries. However, the environmental trade-offs associated with aquaculture should be prevented as far as possible. Noteworthy is that there are diverging views on aquaculture, detectable in the international assessments. For instance, the World Ocean Assessment of 2016 expresses rather negative views on aquaculture, whereas the FAO views sustainable aquaculture as means to ensure long-term food security. Sustainable aquaculture combines environmental sustainability with the social and economic sustainability of coastal and inland fisheries communities in the long term. The FAO stresses its role for livelihoods, particularly among low-income rural populations, and a constantly increasing contribution to world fish production. The report identifies secure and equitable access to and management of aquaculture resources as central (FAO SOFIA 2020). The authors of the HLP Blue papers propose strategies on how to trigger the missing systemic shift to a transformation towards a sustainable ocean development. Following a bigger vision, the HLP Blue Papers point to shifts in global economic paradigms when recommending “aware[ness] of environmental and social limits on growth and consider degrowth” as well as to shifts in global social justice practices when recommending to “create a shared ocean economy that facilitates redistribution of wealth and benefits” (HLP SOE OE 2020: 2). An important means of support for such shifts would be to recognise a ‘human right to a healthy environment’ which has been discussed for decades and many countries are moving in this direction. By 2019, at least 155 states recognise, in law, the right to a healthy environment (Boyd 2019). The French legal think tank Club de Juristes, called for a Global Pact for the Environment including this human right in 2017 and in 2018 the UN General assembly adopted a resolution and opened negotiations to create such a treaty (HLP SOE OT 2020: 26). With this proposal, a human rights perspective on sustainable ocean development could be embedded in national and sub-national contexts and provide important opportunities for agency to defend sustainable development as the case of the West Coast Rock Lobster in South Africa demonstrates (see Box 11). Box 11: The South African West Coast Rock Lobster case: WWF South Africa vs. the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries and Others in 2018 The South African Constitution, contains two important elements regarding environmental rights: 1) everyone has “the right to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being”, and 2) the duty “to protect the environment for present and future generations through reasonable legislative and other measures that [...] ensure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting reasonable economic and social development” (Republic of South Africa 1996: 24). Based on this constitutional right, the Western Cape High Court made a landmark decision. In 2016 the Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries set the total allowable catch (TAC) on lobster at 1.934 tons for the 2017–2018 season, irrespective of the fact that a scientific working group set up by the Department itself had recommended a TAC lower than 800 tons to protect lobster stocks. The WWF sought to have this decision set aside. The court did so on the basis that it was unlawful and in contradiction to the constitutional right, as the harvest above prudent levels of the already depleted lobster stocks posed a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage. The constitutional environmental right supported civil society’s ability to play a more significant role and made it possible to ensure that the government departments adhere to principles of sustainable development (HLP SOE OT 2020: 26). 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 97 98 Conclusion Our analysis of the international assessments for marine and coastal ecosystems (see Section 6.3.1) revealed little transformative ambition. Additional literature analysed, however, outlines the need for transformative change regarding ocean governance as well as complements and details the often generic or very management-oriented recommendations of the assessment reports. This analysis shows that required transformative changes are at least as profound and complex as in the terrestrial realm. The idea of the ocean being a “common heritage to mankind” can be viewed as a cornerstone of a transformative vision. Such a vision entails the ambition to overcome the existing unequal distribution of ocean goods and services and of exposure to harm. The High-Level Panel publications outline some cornerstones of how to support what they call the ocean transition: to strengthen the supranational frameworks being negotiated under UN, develop governance innovations at multiple levels, support civil societies’ role; and link property rights with ocean stewardship responsibilities. Some concrete ideas to operationalise this include measures like moving towards rightsbased fishery management, frameworks that provide a platform for co-management, cooperatives and local ownership and stewardship agreements. To integrate property rights with stewardship responsibilities through local use rights programmes is seen as a strong measure to enhance the agency of regional and local stakeholders regarding use and conservation of marine ecosystems. Regarding the ocean as a sink additional literature recommends not only the adoption of green practices but also the phasing out of unsustainable practices by regulatory measures like banning/ limiting the use of hazardous materials and by redirecting harmful subsidies. The need to share information on the ocean and coasts through a knowledge commons accessible to everyone is emphasised, hoping this will lead to the democratisation of ocean knowledge and enable agency; digitalisation in particular is seen as promising. This is a necessary, albeit often not sufficient, condition for transformative change, as the increasing data availability does not mean that all relevant stakeholders can interpret and/or have means or rights to make use of it. Knowledge needs for transforming the system are not clearly outlined. Specific recommendations are provided on how to address the fragmented governance and regulatory frameworks for ocean use and protection. One of the overarching legal frameworks is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), nonetheless, as a framework its ability to implement sustainable practices and shift economic procedures is limited. In addition, regional alliances and “coalitions of the willing” could act as pioneers that are able to develop, test and thereby demonstrate tailored legal solutions for the sustainable use and protection of the ocean as a global commons; the HLP SOE OE (2020: 26) calls for creating “a shared ocean economy that facilitates redistribution of wealth and benefits”. If sustainable management is included, this could be considered a transformative vision. Finally, the literature discusses the human right to a healthy environment as a means to protect both biodiversity and the rights of local communities by legal measures. 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 98 99 6.4 Synopsis of recommendations for minimising pandemic risks The current pandemic situation and the potential emergence of new diseases highlight the crucial relevance of transforming our systems, not only for conserving global commons but also for human health due to the interconnection between people, animals, plants, and our shared environment. Here we present a summary of recommendations with transformative potential from three recent reports and initiatives seeking to minimise current and future pandemic risks. A transformative vision is shared across the IPBES workshop report (2020) on pandemics and the two UNEP reports “Preventing the next pandemic” (2020) and “Making Peace with Nature” (UNEP MPN 2021) recommending a broader system view following the One Health approach as a guiding principle for pandemic prevention policies. The One Health approach recognises that the health of people, animals and the environment are inextricably linked and that measures in all three sectors are needed to better address proximal and underlying causes of health issues. The “Making Peace with Nature” report explicitly specifies that “the current mode of development degrades Earth’s finite capacity to sustain human well-being” (UNEP MPN 2021: 14) and calls for “transforming humankind’s relationship with nature as a key for a sustainable future” (ibid.: 28). The three reports identify unsustainable consumption patterns as direct driver of biodiversity loss and disease emergence, as these entail environmental change, land-use change (e.g. environmental degradation, deforestation and land conversion for agricultural production), as well as climate change, pollution, and others. Moreover, it mentions that “the economic, financial and productive systems can and should be transformed to lead and power the shift to sustainability” (ibid.: 13), also highlighting that natural capital needs to be included in decision making, and that it is important to eliminate harmful subsidies and invest in the transition to a sustainable future. The IPBES workshop report (2020) recommends launching a high-level intergovernmental council/ panel on pandemics to better collaborate and coordinate among sectors and agencies, nationally and internationally. This One-Health High-Level panel (OHHLEP) was actually launched by a tripartite international organisation (FAO, WHO, OIE) plus UNEP in May 2021. The OHHLEP has an advisory role by providing policy-relevant scientific information on the links between human, animal and ecosystem health as well as contributing to foresight on emerging threats to health. The report includes further specific policy proposals such as the institutionalisation of the One-Health-approach within governments fostering collaboration among ministries including a strong interaction with ministries of finance; mainstreaming the economic cost of pandemics into consumption, production, government policies and budgets; generating green corporate or sovereign bonds and designing green economic recovery from COVID-19 and possible later pandemics. Another point stressed by the reports is that investing in biodiversity conservation may reduce Emerging infectious diseases’ (EID) risk and build economic resilience for the future. This can be done by integrating health impacts into protected areas policies, land-use planning, and restoration programmes, and by mandating pandemic risk impact assessments for major development projects. Such measures would contribute to understanding potential consequences (e.g. altering habitats, creating corridors, etc.) for human and environmental health. The IPBES workshop report (2020) also stresses the need for new intergovernmental partnerships for health and animal trade surveillance, particularly relevant for wildlife trade that lacks the regulation and protocols established for livestock. It suggests that organisations such as CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) could amend how disease spread is monitored and expand it to cover health issues. Furthermore, strong partnerships between CITES and OIE (World Organization for Animal Health) could provide a legal mandate to better control international trade (e.g. inspect shipments), and create expert group guidelines on monitoring, among other actions. Especially relevant is that this partnership should cover species not regulated by CITES. Pertinent other measures to transform the current animal trade include: en6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 100 hancing sanitation in farms (and along the whole supply chain), particularly in live animal markets, and designing behaviour change programmes to disincentivise wildlife meat consumption. All societal actors could develop initiatives and actively contribute to these measures, as the “Making Peace with Nature” report illustrates (see Box 12 below). Box 12: Key actions to transform humankind’s relationship with nature: who could do what? 1. Address Earth’s environmental emergencies and human well-being together Governments at different levels should establish mechanisms for cross-sectoral coordination of assessments, policies, legislation enforcing, and finances considering integrated approaches such as the One Health Policy for humans, animals and the environment. Also, they should adapt and develop concrete plans to address climate change and biodiversity loss, e.g. by forming global coalitions for carbon neutrality, post-2020 targets, and the One Health approach. Financial institutions could commit to align their lending with global-zero carbon emission and sustainability objectives. Furthermore, they could disclose climate-related financial risks, natural resource use and the impact of their activities on the environment. The private sector could contribute by adjusting business models, aligning them with the global net-zero carbon emission objective, and help develop and comply with solid environmental regulations, internationalising production externalities. Moreover, the private sector should disclose climate-related financial risks and impacts, implement certified and traceable supply chains, and practice corporate social responsibility. Non-governmental organisations have the role of enabling different societal groups by supporting education and diverse movements (youth, citizen science) and community-level initiatives and helping to hold societal actors accountable for their environmental responsibilities. Society and media can also foster norms and behaviours that embody sustainable principles, engaging in participatory processes and holding governments and the private sector accountable for their actions. Making sustainable and climate-friendly daily choices is also relevant toward transforming our relationship with nature. Scientific and educational organisations can further develop tools, models, and monitoring systems to account for the complex interlinkages between environment and development. 2. Transform economic and financial systems so they lead and power the shift Governments at different levels should reform national economic, financial, planning and tax systems to include natural capital and environmental costs in decision making, remove harmful subsidies, establish more regulated markets for ecosystem services, and invest in activities that increase natural stocks. International organisations could play an essential role by facilitating a global framework for natural capital accounting, reforming economic growth to integrate nature. This can be done by promoting a circular economy, offsetting nature, and supporting sustainable global supply chains. Financial organisations could boost the circular economy, internalise externalities, eliminate harmful subsidies, and use natural accounting in decision making, lending and grant-making policies. The private sector could contribute by integrating natural capital in decision-making, developing social risk registers, engaging in carbon trade and schemes for offsetting nature, and promoting behaviour change in customers. Non-governmental organisations could boost the natural accounting and circular economy, advocating for policies and regulations that create sustainable development investment. Society and media could support initiatives that foster economic and financial transformations, engaging in sustainable initiatives such as carbon trading and promoting fair trade companies with sustainable production models. Scientific and educational organisations are suggested to further develop the framework for natural accounting and relevant databases and assess the cost and benefits of mitigation, adaptation, and societal impacts. 3. Transform food, water and energy systems to meet growing human needs in an equitable, resilient and environmentally friendly manner Governments are called to integrate sustainable, biodiversity-positive production and management practices into food and water production at different levels. They should promote healthy diets and reduce extractivist conducts such as overfishing. Intergovernmental and financial organisations could promote and found programmes focused on improving access to affordable and nutritious food, clean energy and safe water for all. Furthermore, they could play a relevant role in promoting and financing the sustainable intensification of agriculture and fisheries. The private sector is suggested to develop and invest in a system to store and produce power, food, and water, minimising waste, and promoting sustainable production. Non-governmental organisations could advocate for and implement initiatives oriented to the ecological intensification of multifunctional landscapes. Furthermore, they could promote dietary transitions by participating in community-led initiatives. Society and media play the role of engaging and supporting, respectively, local production and distribution of food, water and energy, and foster conscious daily decisions regarding a healthy and environmentally responsible diet. Scientific and educational organisations could help develop and monitor systems to produce and distribute clean water, nutritional food, and clean energy, promoting the education and awareness of sustainability within agriculture, fisheries, forestry, water, and energy systems. Source: summarised from UNEP MPN 2021 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 101 6.5 How can the transformative potential be enhanced and what gaps remain? The analysis has identified several proposals for actions and solutions with high transformative potential: in particular to address the challenge of current production and consumption patterns exceeding biophysical capacities of the planet. These include redirecting finance, changing incentives, mandatory supply chain legislation, and ensuring that rights of investors do not limit the possibilities of states to enforce human and environmental rights. The agri-food system is a good place to start as it directly impacts all of the commons analysed, and is characterised by persisting global and local inequalities. Regarding the first four building blocks for transformative change, the following gaps remain. Vision: There is a need for a set of mutually compatible compelling new narratives to motivate and guide transformative change conducive to the global commons. These cannot rely mainly on biodiversity but need to address economic and social concerns. There is a clear understanding of the transformative challenge; especially the fundamental criticism of the ‘old model’ is well developed, but we were unable to identify a compelling new narrative in the assessment reports. Given the scope of the problem (global restructuring of many core production systems, agri-food, energy and infrastructure, and the need for far-reaching changes in consumption) makes it difficult to formulate one compelling alternative. More specific new narratives formulated at different levels appear better suited to support the required changes. Such a set of compelling narratives is largely missing. Sustainable development at the global level can serve as a common goal, with the SDGs spelling out what is needed in different sectors as well as how to improve decision making. Specific narratives for subsets of challenges should ensure these are compatible with one another and conducive to the overall goal. Knowledge: The most important gap is knowledge on system change, on how to support the transformation of global production and consumption patterns and to address inequality. Assessment reports are clear and agree that the way we produce and the amounts we consume (and waste) at global scale are too high and destructive for the planet’s ecosystems and biodiversity. Current levels of inequality make the sustainable management of global commons more difficult if not impossible. While some action on this can be taken at the national and local levels, it seems unlikely that transformative change will be possible without global efforts to change production and consumption systems and address inequalities. There are ideas on how to start the process, e.g. by ‘coalitions of the willing’ or regional initiatives (Bulkeley et al. 2020). However, there are few if any suggestions on how to build sufficient momentum for global changes fast enough and how to address the very well-organised vested interests that want to maintain the current unsustainable system. Research on systems change, experiments and enhanced exchange, the willingness to take political risks and build new alliances are some of the ideas that could help acquire this missing transformative knowledge. Dynamics: The biodiversity agenda should be linked up with the agenda of managing the global pandemic and the climate change agenda; else, there is little hope for ‘bending the curve’ in time. The need for transformation is far-reaching and we have not found clear outlines of the overall challenge that could help navigate and nurture changes towards sustainability. Despite increasing urgency, there have been few changes regarding the success of biodiversity strategies both at global and country levels. This is a strong indication that the biodiversity agenda in isolation is unable to address the issues on the table. Climate mitigation and adaptation strategies can be either biodiversity-friendly and lead to mutually reinforcing positive outcomes, or highly destructive for biodiversity and as a consequence lead to mutually reinforcing negative outcomes. The strong interlinkages, as well as much greater political awareness are strong arguments for joining efforts. All the issues of the global Covid-19 pandemic currently at the top of political agendas will make it practically impossible for biodiversity issues to capture 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 102 broad attention on their own but, given strong linkages, they could well be addressed jointly. Halting loss and degradation of all three commons analysed as well as climate change and global pandemics require far-reaching changes in major economic sectors and lifestyles. While the literature clearly shows such a transformation cannot be anticipated or planned in detail, our framework suggests that shared system transition proposals can orient changes and make it more likely that transformations increase sustainability. Emancipation and agency: Taking cultural diversity seriously and opening spaces for debate on how we want to live is essential to achieve much-advocated value change and to find ways for a good life and decent living for all without degrading the global commons. This is especially important in light of strong resistance to change to be expected from those who benefit from the current system. Closer involvement of indigenous and local people is necessary, but not sufficient to achieve transformative change that safeguards the global commons. Far beyond functional considerations, reliable mechanisms must be established that guarantee full agency and decision-making powers for diverse groups of actors and their perspectives; the debates around food sovereignty are a prominent case in point. (Re-)opening spaces for debate and self-determined decisions on how to achieve a sustainable management of global commons and decent living conditions for all is essential to achieving the transformations considered necessary. Legal provisions are recognised as essential leverage points, especially regarding land rights. Not least for the coastal and marine realm, ‘extractive reserves’ offer an example of new, potentially emancipatory legal institutions for managing the global commons. Another important point made here is building the capacity of stakeholders, decision-makers and institutional actors about what transition entails and what is needed with regards to their roles and positions. FAO-UNEP (2020) echoes this point and mentions the importance of enhanced environmental literacy specifically as a way to overcome resistance. The following Chapter 7 illuminates another perspective as it examines projects for their transformative potential, before Chapter 8 brings all the analyses together. 6 Analysing and complementing the transformative potential of the assessments’ recommendations 103 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change Analysis of projects Semi-structured interviews What can be learned from practice? How do projects reflect elements of transformative change? How can projects be designed to be more oriented towards transformative change? STEP 4 As global assessments often tend to provide abstract conclusions and a top-down perspective, we complement them by analysing two sets of specific projects. A first set of six projects analysed were international cooperation projects in which several authors from the UFZ team were personally involved as scientific project partners within the last ten years. Five of the projects were funded by the German Ministry of the Environment’s International Climate Initiative (BMU-IKI). The UFZ contribution to the projects builds on the insights of the international TEEB initiative (The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity) and applies an ecosystem services perspective to strengthen environmental policy and planning and to mainstream biodiversity into other sectors. The second set of nine projects and programmes are BMZ-funded and implemented by GIZ and/ or KfW. The projects were selected by GIZ as relevant for transformative change based on key issues identified in our analysis of recommendations from international assessment reports. The information from these projects was obtained via semi-structured interviews with the project managers (see Chapter 2/ Appendix 1). The main question for the analysis is what can be learned from the project experiences on how to increase the transformative potential of future projects that aim to conserve or improve the state of the global commons addressed in this study: biodiversity, natural forests, and the ocean. The projects were assessed along guiding questions that corresponded to the structure of the building blocks of our transformative change framework. 7.1 Projects analysed 7.1.1 Projects with UFZ involvement ECO-BEST: ECO-BEST was a four-year project (2011–2015) that aimed at using economic and financial instruments to combat terrestrial biodiversity loss in South-East Asia and at the same time to empower and benefit local communities. For this, the Ecosystem service opportunity (ESO) methodology was developed. The project was financed by the European Union with co-funding from the Thai government. It was coordinated by GIZ Thailand, with UFZ and the Thai Department for National Parks (DNP) as project partners. Methods for integrating ecosystem services into policy, planning and practice (ValuES): ValuES was a five-year project (2013–2018) coordinated by GIZ and funded by BMU-IKI. The project aimed at supporting experts and decision-makers in ministries and organisations in selected partner countries to consider ecosystem services and biodiversity in planning and policy processes. It developed an 110 Taking a systemic perspective also includes that prior to action attention is paid to examining the validity of underlying assumptions and to ensuring an appraisal of potential unintended side effects. This may be an ‘uncomfortable task’ in that it bears the risk of revealing necessary project changes. It requires more flexibility in project design and in project evaluation indicators. In case of such revelations, the systemic understanding should of course be refined based on new insights throughout project implementation [ECO-BEST]. Also, a balance needs to be struck between the desire for comprehensive system understanding and certain limits to understanding all the details of system elements, which may not be feasible in light of resource or time constraints [INTERACT-Bio]. Moreover, for many issues the degree of detail, precision and certainty of knowledge needed for decision-making can be much lower than scientific researchers would assume. Organisational development and change management can provide tools and inspiration for wider systems change Reforming institutions and improving policy implementation are essential parts of systems change. For this, knowledge is necessary on how organisations, in particular government organisations, function within their socio-political setting and identifying who is in a position to change how they operate and what motivates these actors to make such changes. Organisational development and change management can provide tools and inspiration for wider systems change. One example is force-field analysis with an iterative process of mapping actors, analysing their roles and power as hindering or promoting changes, as well as the external barriers and enablers (e.g. laws, resources, political setting). This helped to understand the widespread and systemic role of corruption and the consequences of political instability [ProAmbiente]. A multitude of different knowledge types needs to be integrated Integrating the various forms of knowledge is key to achieving transformative change. For instance, local (academic and non-academic) organisations are highly relevant for transformation (projects), regarding their knowledge, their contextualisation skills, but also their influence on future administrators and discourses as teaching institutions [REDD Early Movers]. In addition, projects should promote exchange and facilitate collaboration between social and natural science experts to substantially revise and enrich a shared environmental problem framing (e.g. in scientific policy advisory structures as well as future research) [TONINA, TEEB India]. In many contexts, indigenous and experience-based knowledge is highly relevant, e.g. on traditional resource management, yet it should be kept in mind that the elicitation of such knowledge can be prone to biases and wishful thinking. Moreover, integrating local knowledge is in itself a political act, and the emancipatory potential of articulating such knowledge (and underlying framings] is sometimes as relevant for transformative change as the actual content of the knowledge [Biodiver_CITY]. Enhancing transformative knowledge is also about skills and communicative abilities Generating and exchanging transformative knowledge requires enhancing the integrated strategic thinking capacities and communicative ability of many actors. Communicative ability includes “translating” between sector-specific “languages” (e.g. of different ministries in Germany, NGOs, ministries in partner countries, private sector representatives, EU institutions, and producer cooperatives – including simplification where necessary); it also includes networking, empathy, patience, and listening skills [ValuES]. Project partners have been introduced to – or confronted with – a series of promising concepts over past decades by donors and implementing agencies. Yet their role in co-shaping such concepts (which often provide the justifying framework for project interventions), was arguably limited. To raise awareness about the role of intact ecosystems and their services for agricultural development, e.g., you need both systemic knowledge and the ability to co-explore with stakeholders in appropriate language how their own lives depend on them [TONINA, REDD Early Movers, Programme for Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains and Standards]. For channelling finance to sustainable and conservation-friendly agricultural practices, finance institutions and farmers or conservation organisations need spaces and support to find a common language and come to mutual understanding [Eco.Business Fund]. Communication of programme benefits and a shared vision to the broader population in the partner countries (communication campaigns, using social media, etc.) will help disseminate transformative knowledge [REDD Early Movers]. 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change 111 3 Transformative dynamics Don’t shy away from phasing out unsustainable practices Projects have a tendency to focus on phasing in innovative ideas and piloting or up-scaling sustainable practices [ECO-BEST, UFF, TONINA]. However, both phasing in and phasing out are necessary for transformative change. Projects should hence directly pursue both strategies and in particular also aim at phasing out unsustainable practices and their incentives and regulations. This also has implications for the choice of policy partners. Working towards ‘phasing out’ unsustainable practices requires anticipation and management of resistance from those who have an interest in maintaining the current system [Biodiver CITY]. The need to mobilise political momentum and to create alliances for driving transformative change processes that phase out the currently dominant paradigms or production systems, is often beyond the scope and timeframe of projects [INTERACT-Bio, Pro2GRN – Cote d’Ivoire]. Also, the cooperative ‘spirit’ of projects, as well as (donor) expectations of project success, lead to avoiding difficult terrain, such as challenging vested interests or profitable but unsustainable practices [ECO-BEST, TONINA]. Making the case for the need and usefulness of such approaches will probably require additional effort, but policy entrepreneurs can be found in many countries and actively searching for such alliances may well be worthwhile. Longer funding cycles are considered useful (6+ years), as are programme designs that allow for an explicit focus on tackling resistance to change from powerful interest groups. In such programmes, scientific and policy advisory have to partly move out of their ‘comfort zone’ of established routines and partnerships, and combine or replace them with strategic support for structures which pursue civic articulation and emancipation [TEEB India]. This can bear risks for established work relations – and such risk needs to be weighed up against the potential of stimulating transformative momentum. Support conditions for long-term transformative change dynamics Transformative change requires careful management of dynamics and actual implementation depends on preconditions. In many countries this concerns planning processes and capacities as well as institutional or organisational changes. Particularly in highly volatile political situations with rotation of political and technical personnel, knowledge transfer and learning processes are hampered [ProAmbiente]. In these conditions, international cooperation can serve as institutional memory and is therefore in a good position to support change dynamics and the implementation of laws and regulations over longer periods of time [Biodiver_CITY]. Development collaboration can also help formulate clear roadmaps and support processes to put them into action. International cooperation can work with authorities to identify and tackle underlying barriers for transformation dynamics, such as corruption [ProAmbiente]. Importantly, not only governmental actors need to be included from the onset, also cooperation and coherence with the private sector is important to increase the acceptance of the initiated processes and thus to ensure the sustainability of their implementation [CBF]. 4 Emancipation and agency Facilitate societal dialogue and co-design on visions and strategies Broad societal dialogue and co-design of visions and strategies are crucial both for the legitimacy of change processes as much as for increasing the probability of actual change to hap-pen [ECO-BEST, Biodiver_CITY]. Development cooperation can facilitate such dialogue and co-design. Yet, the most disadvantaged segments of society are often the hardest to reach and engage in a project (women, youth, unorganised smallholders, etc.). They are also highly vulnerable to bigger changes. Very deliberate, specific and sustained efforts are needed to involve them throughout programme design and governance [REDD Early Movers]. It is also important to explicitly consider agency: who needs to act, who has the power to change things? Grassroots level initiatives may have to be strengthened to not only advocate their cause, but also to open up spaces for political debate and for negotiating collective sustainability action [ECO-BEST, INTERACT-Bio]. Promoting cross-sectoral collaboration and strategic planning The executive branch in many countries is vertically structured by sectors. The transversal claim made regarding environmental policy and thus its institutions is therefore often a serious point of conflict and is frequently met with a retreat to minimal core issues by the environmental institutions [ProAmbiente]. But as the ‘force 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change 112 field’ for transformative change must extend far beyond the environmental institutions, this conflict must be tackled. Jurisdictional approaches are needed and imply coordination and strategic planning across sectors. The idea of establishing “sustainable sourcing regions”, for example, is meant to ensure that production increases in agriculture actually prevent deforestation rather than creating leakage effects [REDD Early Movers, TEEB India, ProAmbiente]. Development cooperation can play a critical role in connecting sectoral authorities and facilitating constructive exchange. Exchange platforms to ‘think outside the box’ at the highest level (intergovernmental negotiations) can give a boost for in-depth change beyond sectoral boundaries [ProAmbiente]. Cross-sectoral collaboration (e.g. between conservation and agriculture) is often difficult to establish because of disincentives (extra efforts, unclear leadership and visibility, different sector objectives, concepts, jargons). The involvement of hierarchically superordinate institutions (Presidential Offices, Planning Ministries, etc.) can be very helpful for managing intersectoral coordination [Pro2GRN – Cote d’Ivoire]. Furthermore, interand transdisciplinary work (integrating different scientific disciplines as well as non-scientific actors) plays a crucial role in developing multi-track research approaches [SPICE, COREMAP]. Development cooperation can serve as a ‘disinterested’ convener or facilitator by providing platforms and events to help overcome these barriers. The collaboration between development cooperation and research should be further strengthened: it is mutually beneficial [SPICE]. 5 Transformative Governance Many aspects covered under blocks 1 to 4 above also relate to governance for implementing action and solutions. The following additional insights resulting from the project analysis deserve being mentioned or further emphasised: • Who articulates a message is at least as important as the message itself. The selection of experts and communicators between science and policy influences the uptake of information. Renowned experts who are continuously committed throughout the project because they take on ownership are an important step for the transformative change idea to resonate with decision-makers. • When the activities of local grassroots champions are supported as part of actions and solutions, elements of trans formative change can often be more aligned with the perspectives and aspirations of local communities, which can improve the acceptance of new solutions [ECO-BEST, Pro2GRN – Cote d’Ivoire]. • It often helps to build on and further develop traditional land use practices and institutions, as well as local knowledge or ways of dealing with issues, rather than imposing accepted and tested concepts from different contexts [Pro2GRN – Cote d’Ivoire]. • Special attention needs to be paid to understanding the effects of proposed solutions for the different social groups and to minimise the socio-economic risks, especially of the most vulnerable groups. • Multi-actor partnerships that involve all actors along a supply chain take time and patience to build – but interviewees see no alternative. Continuous communication efforts enable understanding, build trust, and help identify solutions that work for all [Programme for Sustainable Agricultural Supply Chains and Standards]. • Especially in conflictual situations, cautious and detailed, possibly iterative steps have to be taken to try out new approaches before making fundamental changes. In protected areas, e.g., national legislation (‘no-take policy’) often stands in the way of developing local sustainable use regimes. Yet, without a strong local sustainable use regime the implementation of more flexible legislation for protected areas will back-fire as it lacks locally accepted implementing/ monitoring structures. • In terms of project and portfolio development in both initial design as well as in further developing these, several projects highlighted the importance of improving interministerial coordination in Germany, as well as between financial and technical cooperation. An interesting observation was that this coordination usually works notably better if third parties are involved, i.e. if Germany and another country collaborate in supporting a project or initiative. 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change 113 Concluding remarks International cooperation projects often seek to overcome boundaries and establish innovative actions. Thereby they challenge usual practices and support introducing/developing new ways of thinking, manners of practical implementation and policies. These new ideas – reflected in people’s action and speech – can create precedents and pilots that are taken on in a wider context. Ideally, all these incremental steps lead to a change that includes new ideas which – ex-post – turn out to be transformative. The projects analysed for this study address the five building blocks of transformative change to varying degrees. While most of them had not formulated an explicitly transformative ambition, all hold potential to contribute to sustainability transitions. All projects work on governance and include elements of several if not all properties of transformative governance (inclusive, adaptive, informed, integrative, and accountable). Concerning transformative visions, we found that visions were at times global, but vague and therefore not very conducive to mobilizing people, whereas at other times, visions were more local and concrete. The challenge to link local actions to global visions remains important for any project with transformative ambition, where elements of transformative knowledge, dynamics, and emancipation are important to help orient local actions to address global challenges in addition to solving local issues. Questions of transformative knowledge were not centrally addressed by most of the projects. Pro-Ambiente with its emphasis on understanding and addressing barriers for change with systemic organizational development methods stands out as an inspiring example. Most projects with UFZ involvement focus on making knowledge on ecosystem services and who benefits or depends on them available for policy development and thus serve to generate action-oriented knowledge to support change processes that at least facilitate sustainable management of biodiversity. Regarding transformation dynamics, our main observation is that, overall, phasing-out plays a limited role in project conceptualisation. Rather than addressing the root causes that are most harmful to the global commons, projects tend to focus on phasing in and piloting new ideas. The BMZ-funded projects routinely support cross-sectoral cooperation and increasingly use jurisdictional approaches. Several projects increase agency of weaker groups by supporting them to organise. In projects financed by other donors, agency and empowerment are rather less developed; the main instrument used was capacity building. An exception was the ECO-BEST project in Thailand, which actively promoted the creation of new institutional arrangements to overcome administrative boundaries (a sub-river basin committee) and conflicts (buffer zone co-management between the national park authority and local communities). 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change Figure 19: Conclusions of project analyses based on the first four building blocks of the framework on transformative change 114 We conclude that the transformative potential of projects often lies in the combination of a longer-term vision for the project’s topic, and the establishment of practices, institutional arrangements, policy instruments, as well as the induced technical capacity and financial means that can eventually go beyond the project’s initial (geographical and social) scope and support a longer-term transition process. Development cooperation projects as politically supported opportunities to try out, raise awareness and acceptance for new approaches can thus give an important impetus for transformation. And yet, they could be used even more courageously to support the local generation of transformative ideas and to address unsustainable activities. As our analysis of transformative knowledge shows, transformative change requires taking higher risks and dealing with powerful, often globally organised resistance to change. What does the project perspective add to the assessment report findings? The recommendations of international assessment reports tend to remain vague and disconnected across different domains of change. The more bottom-up and implementation-oriented perspective of concrete projects added a more complete view on the challenges and gaps of addressing transformative change in practical contexts. Transformative change in order to enable sustainable management of global commons can only be achieved if action is taken at many different levels across a range of sectors. Development cooperation is but one element in this endeavour. This underscores the importance of interministerial coordination within Germany also between the different Ministries involved in international cooperation, and between financial and technical cooperation mentioned above (block 5). Similarly, it is crucial to support international efforts to change ground rules, such as establishing supply chain regulation so that companies operating in Germany are made accountable for social and environmental problems throughout their supply chain. 7 Experience from practice for inducing transformative change Box 14: How useful is the framework on transformative change for evaluating projects? We used the framework to analyse different characteristics of projects important for transformation. Especially analysing the projects we were involved in, allowed us to understand to what extent project activities contributed to dynamics, knowledge and agency and to reveal gaps in project design or implementation. Looking back on completed projects to rethink how they could have been more transformative was also an instructive thought experiment for both interviewers and interviewees, even in cases where not all of the guiding questions could be answered. How useful is the framework on transformative change for project planning? We find the framework especially useful for project planning. We have found it useful as checklist that helps to elaborate a Theory of Change, identify a balanced set of activities as well as partners, potential agents of change including multipliers/communicators, and to anticipate resistance. The formulation of a transformative vision, i.e. a vision that is ambitious on the one hand and realistic on the other, seems to be the most important first step upon which the project activities can be further designed. Well established project planning tools like stakeholder mapping, socio-economic assessments, etc. can be used and easily extended to identify potential agents of change or resistance. At the same time, socio-cultural assessments that take into account the voices of marginalised groups and traditional customs can generate important transformative knowledge. Moreover, such assessments can help design project activities that will likely be understood and acknowledged by local people and decisionmakers. 115 8 Main findings and implications Deriving recommendations Expert workshops What recommendations for international collaboration and development cooperation can be derived for biodiversity, forests and the ocean? STEP 5 In this chapter, we bring together our analysis of the findings of global assessments and the project reflections8. In Section 8.1, we synthesise the core challenges across the three commons analysed and identify the underlying causes for their continued degradation. This allows us to formulate ambitions to guide the transformation towards sustainable management of global commons. In Section 8.2, we use the conceptual framework to structure and prioritise measures for transformative change towards sustainability. The five building blocks of the framework (vision, knowledge, dynamics, emancipation and agency, and governance) constitute integrated elements. In the previous chapters, the framework was used for analysing the recommendations in the international assessment reports and for guiding the reflection of the project case-studies. We now use the framework more comprehensively to address the question: Which measures might enable transformative change towards a sustainable management of global commons such as biodiversity, forests or the ocean? 8We used the conceptual framework developed in Chapter 3 to examine a number of past and ongoing research and cooperation projects to see how they have contributed (or could have contributed) to transformative change (see Chapter 7). All projects’ aims included improving the management of at least one of the global commons analysed here: biodiversity, natural forests or the ocean. 8.1 Causes of degradation and ambitions for sustainably managing global commons Recalling the core challenges for sustainably managing global commons (see Box 15), we went on to identify the cross-cutting challenges or underlying causes that drive the degradation and depletion of our global commons most severely. Box 15: Core challenges for sustainably managing global commons identified in global assessment reports Concerning biodiversity loss (see Section 4.1.2): Prevailing production and consumption patterns and incentive structures lead to land and resource use that exceeds bio-physical capacities. Biodiversity loss reinforces global inequalities which in turn reinforce biodiversity loss. The protection of biodiversity as global commons lacks determined, integrative and multilateral responses. Concerning forests (see Section 4.2.2): The main challenge is to halt deforestation and forest degradation, in particular by conserving the remaining natural forests. To achieve this the underlying drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (competing demands and conflicts with other sectors) need to be addressed. Concerning the ocean (see Section 4.3.2): Planning fails to deal adequately with the interconnectedness of marine ecosystems. Excessive marine resource use and harmful discharges must be addressed. The governance of the ocean is currently fragmented. 116 This synthesis process involved breaking down the challenges extracted from the assessment reports into underlying causes or indirect drivers and matching them with findings from the projects. In summary, for all three analysed commons, the causes for degradation and destruction can be broadly synthesised as follows: • Overconsumption and excessive waste, especially by wealthier consumers, have led to levels of resource use that exceed biophysical capacity, or the “planetary boundaries” (as conceptualized by Rockström et al. 2009). • Production and resource extraction practices have high environmental and social impacts, the costs of which are borne by others (externalised), including future generations. • These practices continue to degrade and reduce the remaining global commons, and • further aggravate socio-economic inequalities, which constitute justice issues and also render collective stewardship and problem-solving more difficult. Transforming global agri-food systems is central for both biodiversity and forests, as continuing agricultural expansion and intensification are considered to be central causes for their loss. Similar findings apply to other sectors such as energy. It becomes clear that the underlying causes for the degradation and depletion of global commons – and therefore also the potential solutions – fundamentally depend on how societies and in particular how economic systems are organised. As they are multiple-use commons (see Section 5.4), the negative effects of production on global commons often go unperceived (by those causing them); true costs are not included in the price of products and not accounted for in production and consumption decisions. This means that even from a purely economic-growth-oriented perspective, current rules are inevitably leading to inefficient resource use (see Dasgupta et al. 2021). Profits derived from exploiting poorly protected (global) commons are private while the environmental damage that comes along with it is socialised and therefore incurred by all. This is most evident in open-access situations (such as the high seas). Unaccounted ‘social costs’ include high economic and health risks for people working or living at the beginning and end of global supply chains, often working overtime and earning less than ‘living wages’, which means they earn too little to fulfil even basic human needs. The project analysis shows that reducing the pressures caused by current production and consumption practices is not enough and does not automatically stop degradation or the conversion of remaining natural areas. Specific instruments and regulations are therefore needed to (i) safeguard critical parts of nature, such as the remaining natural forests, (ii) allow overused parts, such as many fish stocks, to regenerate, and (iii) restore degraded parts, such as land areas prone to desertification. How can such fundamental change in economic practices be achieved? According to the literature on transformative change (Chapter 3.1), transformation can occur in a series of small steps, as long as a clear vision ensures these enhance one another and develop effects in the right direction. To make this insight operational, we break down the general vision into more targeted ambitions in order to address the cross-cutting challenges identified above. Measures to address these should clearly contribute to • significantly reduce total resource use and waste, which can only be achieved by a globally more balanced and significantly less resource-intensive satisfaction of human needs. At the same time, all humans should be able to at least satisfy their basic needs. This would provide a “social foundation” (Raworth 2012) to global resource use and contribute to reducing inequality. Avenues for achieving this include consuming less resource-intensive, more durable and reusable products, including much more conscious food choices (with less animal-based products). However, increasingly globalized supply chains make it practically impossible for consumers to know what their choices entail, which in turn means regulation has to ensure that consumers can make responsible choices and producers are liable for any damages they cause. • encourage and ensure production patterns without external costs, this means prohibiting practices with highly detrimental impacts and holding producers accountable and producers held accountable in case of breach. Remaining impacts on the environment and on human health are mitigated or compensated for, the costs of which should be included in the product or service provided (true or full cost accounting). • reduce socio-economic inequalities, both in terms of access to resources and in terms of securing a fair distribution of benefits as prerequisites for self-determined choices and a life in dignity for all. This is relevant for enabling sustainable management of the commons, as we currently find many areas where commons are overused 8 Main findings and implications 117 as they are the only resources that marginalised groups have access to. • safeguard and restore critical elements of the global commons. In order to secure and – where possible – increase nature’s contribution to people, parts of the global commons require explicit protection, even if production and consumption were organised much more sustainably than they currently are. Examples for measures to achieve this include protected areas, no-take policies in fisheries to allow overfished stocks to recover, or quantitative restrictions on CO2 emissions. These ambitions provide clear orientation while allowing many different measures for achieving them; this means they leave sufficient leeway for deliberation and inclusion to decide on context-specific choice and implementation. We argue that only if these ambitions are pursued globally, they will enable a sustainable management of global commons. Against this background, the main potential for triggering change consists in identifying measures to restructure global and national regulation in such a way that it will contribute to converting consumer and producer decision-making towards sustainable behaviour. The question is how economic policy and economic development pathways can be reoriented in order to significantly reduce pressure on the global commons and thus prevent further deterioration, and on the contrary to allow these ecosystems to regenerate. This concerns the content of transformative change. Further challenges concern the process of how to “stimulate, nurture, and navigate” change processes and socio-ecological transformations in favour of safeguarding global commons from local to global settings, in particular how to deal with the barriers to change, i.e. factors that stabilise unsustainable practices within the current economic system. Figure 20 summarises the arguments of this section. Cross-cutting challenges for global commons Ambitions Barriers to consider Measures for transformative change Production exceeds ecological capacities Socioeconomic inequality Overconsumption & excessive waste Production based on full cost accounting Balanced & responsible consumption Reduce socioeconomic inequalities Safeguard, restore & allow recovery of global commons Regulate to enable sustainable production & consumption vested interests path dependencies weak global institutions resistance / hesitation to change Strenghten right-based approaches Empower societal debate VISION Building Blocks for transformative change Global commons increasingly degraded & lost ... KNOW LEDGE DYNA MICS AGEN CY GOVERNANCE BIODIVERSITY FORESTS THE OCEAN CLIMATE SYSTEM SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF GLOBAL COMMONS 8 Main findings and implications Figure 20: Ambitions that address cross-cutting challenges and guide transformative change 118 8 Main findings and implications 8.2 Increasing the transformative potential of measures The objective of this section is to discuss what defines the transformative potential of different measures. We argue that the four ambitions elaborated above can serve to guide the direction of change or, phrased differently, to keep it on track towards a sustainable management of global commons. The measures discussed were derived in Chapters 6 and 7, based on the discussion of the recommendations of global assessment reports and the reflection of projects. The discussion is structured along the building blocks of our framework on transformative change and summarised in Figure 21 below. A set of compelling narratives needs to outline the way forward The need for fundamental change across many, if not all, sectors of society requires a vision and compelling narratives to guide and inspire different sectors to engage in transformative change to sustainability. A narrative (implicitly) includes problems, causes, actors and solutions. It reveals alternative choices and potentials. Narratives provide context and meaning to measures. Narratives do not primarily have to address the environment: changes need to happen in the economic realm, and social impacts are the ultimate consequences of the loss of global environmental commons. Sustainable development, as summarised in the SDGs, can serve as a common goal and vision; narratives involving potential solutions could then support working towards this overall goal. So far, no new story has convincingly mobilised concerted efforts towards transformation. Ideas of universal well-being based on continuous economic growth still prevail, despite fifty years of pointing to the biophysical limits of our planet and persistently high – and in many countries increasing – socio-economic inequalities. While the assessment reports provide well-developed criticism of the ‘old model’ and a clear understanding of the need for transformative change, we were unable to identify compelling new narratives in the reports. The scope of the problem – the need to drastically reduce resource and energy use and the destructive impacts these currently entail – makes it hard to imagine one compelling alternative narrative. Problems, meanings and solutions vary across different sectors and socio-political contexts. Several of the projects highlighted that they spend a considerable amount of time and effort on translating concepts and terminologies between different sectors and that this is essential for identifying ways forward. Literature discussed in Chapter 6 and the review of projects led us to conclude that transformative narratives need to embed the ambitions outlined above into new stories and, at the same time, a societal debate is needed to reframe several established economic and political paradigms: 1. The promises of efficiency gains, technological advancement, mobilising private initiative, and adaptive capacity of societies are insufficient responses given the scale of the identified challenges. 2. Precaution, sufficiency, inclusiveness and solidarity should become leading principles for policy – their better embodiment in images, words, and stories is needed. 3. The narrative “anyone can work their way up from dishwasher to millionaire” frames freedom as the possibility for individuals to accumulate wealth, accomplishment as material consumption reflected in cars, mansions, and participating in the global jet set. In alternative, more minimalist narratives, freedom refers to the choice of how to live, what to do, fulfilment, belonging, sharing, learning, amazement, wonder, caring, connecting. The required reductions and changes in current patterns of consumption are limiting within the first, but liberating within the second narrative. 4. Similarly, governments regulating supply chains or internalising production costs can be perceived either as interfering with markets and limiting corporate freedom or as a necessary precondition to level the playing field for innovative entrepreneurs 119 8 Main findings and implications to develop novel solutions and sustainable practices. 5. Modern agriculture – far from achieving the promise of “feeding the world” – is at a crossroads between continuing along extractive, industrialised and agroecological pathways. In current models, farmers are dependent on fossil-fuel based commercial inputs, loans and globally connected markets. While some further optimization and greening may be possible, these models are unlikely to return (and remain) within planetary boundaries or to ensure a world without hunger. The alternative is shifting towards agro-ecological, regenerative and resilient systems, which avoid or mitigate many adverse side effects of production on the biosphere and rely mainly on managing self-sustaining cycles (see Section 6.1.2). 6. Reducing socio-economic inequality within societies, between countries and world regions but also between generations is an essential part of sustainable development, the current levels of inequality also jeopardise sustainability of global commons because it makes collective stewardship and fair decision-making very difficult. Global commons are often the only resources economically marginalized groups can access, and strong demand from across the globe favours extractive use over sustainable management. For further arguments see Box 16 below). The examined projects provide examples for transformative visions at concrete thematic levels. For instance, the narrative ‘only rapid economic growth can raise people out of poverty’ is challenged or at least modified by: ‘the benefits from healthy ecosystems are a lifeline for the poor – therefore, economic growth must not degrade those vital assets’ (TEEB-India). Similarly, one could emphasise that ‘conservation protects vital assets for sustainable development’ instead of ‘conservation defends nature against humans’ (Pro2GRN). Project experience also indicates that radical alternative narratives may easily cause rejection. Thus, narratives may have to evolve slowly towards the transformative vision: being somewhat compatible with currently dominant paradigms, but sufficiently different to ‘make a difference’. Narratives featuring transformation have to entail a broad range of issues at multiple levels to gain acceptance and influence across sectors and continents. Overarching approaches (e.g. ‘deforestation-free value chains’ or ‘circular bioeconomy’) have to be broken down and re-articulated for regional and national contexts. International and development cooperation are well-suited to facilitate and contribute to such debates. Visions that contribute to stabilising and optimising currently unsustainable management practises are not transformative. Thinking beyond the existing economic, legal, and political settings helps to challenge well-established but possibly no longer valid assumptions. This implies taking risks and leaving the beaten paths. Inspiration could also come from the arts and humanities. Value change includes the recognition that Western-style modernity is not the only valid worldview. The recognition of value plurality and of diverse cosmologies and (indigenous) knowledge systems shows that exploitative resource use is only one variant of human-environment relationships; and that other value systems and worldviews may actually offer better answers to some of the grand challenges, for example, based on interdependence and ‘convivencia’. Opening spaces for visioning exercises and experimentation could promote open-mindedness and help revitalise overlooked or forgotten sustainability values. This could unfold transformative potential by opening the political space for radically different conceptualisations of a ‘good life’. Furthermore, and perhaps even foremost, cultural self-determination can be seen as a prerequisite and an inspiration for pursuing alternative sustainability pathways. 126 Transformative Governance means: changing the rules to re-organise the playing field The first four blocks outline how to create settings conducive to transformative change, namely a vision providing direction, knowledge on how to change the system, an understanding of dynamics and options for increasing democratic discussion and opportunities for agency. It is against this background that strategies for enhancing transformative change towards a sustainable management of global commons can be identified. Questions here include: What instruments can help to move the system into the right direction and who are potential agents of change? From theory we derived the need for inclusive, informed, adapted, integrated and accountable governance (see Chapter 3.2) this is largely acknowledged and integrated within the analysed projects. Efficiency gains alone have been shown to be insufficient and at the global level we collectively need to ensure that “our demands on nature do not exceed its supply” (Dasgupta et al. 2021: 69). This requires significant reductions in overall resource use: less resource-intensive production i.e. less animal and more plant-based foods, significant reduction of waste, more circular production with significantly longer lifetimes of product use, more reuse and recycling. Calls for involving the private sector via Corporate Social Responsibility, mainly to help fund biodiversity policy, have been raised for many years now, just like the call for increasing positive incentives such as Payments for Ecosystem Services and reducing negative ones such as harmful subsidies. While useful and needed, the real challenge is to phase out unsustainable production practices. In order for the private sector to meaningfully contribute to this shift, the massive externalisation of costs has to stop. What is needed is to change the rules so that damage and degeneration of the commons is avoided and production and consumption account for their full impacts. The challenge is to provide a level playing field for innovation towards sustainability and to turn e.g. the finance sector into a motor of the sustainability transition. In Chapter 9 we provide several tables with potential measures to achieve this, here, we illustrate this with three examples instruments that can contribute to this change of rules to enable transformation at the global level. Rules for managing the ocean Oceans are a prime example of global commons, and would benefit most from further agreements on rules. With the exception of fisheries, oceans are in large parts currently exploited under an open access regime. This more or less means that whoever is able to exploit the ocean, does this in a largely unregulated manner. For some issues there have been global agreements, including phasing out single hull oil tankers, thereby considerably reducing risks of oil spills. Similarly, there are some marine protected areas even in the high seas. The measures suggested below (increasing awareness by obligations to report on impacts of any productive activity on the environment and in particular on biodiversity and ecosystem services, as well as creating legislation to hold companies accountable for the damages they cause) would contribute significantly to improving the state of the world’s oceans. However, with increasing interest in ocean mining, further agreements on rules and limits to exploitation are needed. As outlined in Chapter 6.3.2, some regional alliances and ‘coalitions of the willing’ such as the High-Level Panel on Oceans are probably best placed to develop, test and thereby demonstrate effective rules that would benefit all nations. Increasing the number of countries that understand and participate in this new regime, and thus raising the interest in establishing such rules at the global level could be an interesting field for development cooperation. The role of finance and insurance in changing incentives The experience from the Eco.Business project shows that investors understand that sustainable production systems are not only good for sustainability, but also reduce financial risks. Making all investors aware of their responsibilities, as well as their own self-interest, in supporting sustainable production is a first step and requiring producers to report their impacts on global climate and biodiversity (including in forests and the ocean) is the next important step for redirecting investment flows. Further steps could come from public procurement legislation to prevent public investment in unsustainable activities. The EU Taxonomy on sustainable finance is an important effort in this overall direction. Holding producers liable for their damages to global commons would make financing of unsustainable activities much costlier. Insurance providers can play a similar role by fully reflect8 Main findings and implications 127 ing risks to global commons and the costs of potential damages in their rates (see SRI 2020: 45f.). Given the EU is a large player globally, implementing any of these steps has a noticeable impact and hopefully serves as example for other players to follow. Making global supply chains sustainable The third example also illustrates the implications of the call for the joint implementation of the five governance modes: • Inclusive: for each step of the governance process, all relevant actors need to be included and their role defined. • Informed: available and necessary information for strategic choices needs to be compiled and accessible to all stakeholders. • Adaptive: structures and outcomes must constantly be reflected, evaluated and adjusted in order to enable adaptive learning processes. • Integrated: across levels and sectors, rules and incentive options need to coherently support the implementation of the strategic mechanism/governance process. • Accountable: rules need to ensure that key actors fulfil their responsibility in the governance process. Most global assessments analysed still place high hopes on product certification. However, experience has shown that while it can help orient particularly responsible, wealthy consumers, certification has neither succeeded in stopping unsustainable practises, nor enabled producers to obtain significant price premiums. Conversely, it implies considerable transaction costs, can be misused for “greenwashing”, and is susceptible to corruption or differing standards in different parts of the world. The Eco.Business fund management underscored the importance and difficulty of identifying reliable certification schemes for their investments; if professionals find this challenging, relying on consumers to manage global commons by buying certified products almost sounds naive. It therefore seems more useful to phase out unsustainable production practices; to achieve this, costs need to be internalised along the entire supply chain. This requires legislation that holds producers accountable for the externalities of their products, obliging them to demonstrate that inputs and production processes are sustainable and making them liable for infringements. In such a context, certification makes more sense as it certifies compliance with a legal obligation [accountable]. A challenge is how to establish sustainability criteria that are pragmatic enough that they can be implemented and enforced yet ambitious enough to actually make a difference, and they will likely have to be become more ambitious over the next few years [informed & adaptive]. Involving all actors along the supply chains has led to rather minimal standards of many voluntary schemes. The experience of the agricultural supply chain programme shows this has considerably improved ‘in the shadow of hierarchy’: in view of the fact that the EU is currently preparing further legislation for deforestation-free supply chains, the willingness to participate as well as ambition levels suggested by the private sector have been considerably higher than in purely voluntary schemes. Pilot projects demonstrate that higher returns to primary producers and less environmentally destructive practices are possible, even under current market conditions [inclusive]. However, improving production systems and supply chains will not per se reduce deforestation and forest degradation; the protection of forests needs to be regulated and implemented by separate legislation. In projects addressing deforestation, subnational governments apply jurisdictional or landscape approaches with the goal of establishing and certifying “sustainable sourcing regions” across different sectors, with clear zoning and enforced forest protection. These projects are experiencing that such regulation-enforced landscape management is essential to ensure that supply chain measures or REDD+ payments reduce deforestation [integrated]. To enforce supply chain regulation, additional reports recommend improved databases, e.g. to support efforts to phase out illegal timber trade. Project interviews specify that partner countries should be encouraged to improve land tenure and better address corruption and lack of law enforcement, especially around illegal deforestation [informed & accountable]. Effects of policy measures need to be monitored closely so that they can be adjusted or complemented by further instruments in a timely manner [adaptive]. The measure of supply chain legislation contributes to three of the four ambitions identified. It creates strong incentives for producers to avoid environmental damages such as deforestation along their supply chain. More indirectly espe8 Main findings and implications 128 cially when communicated well, consumers are made aware of the fact that certain products often lead to deforestation, while learning about the deforestation-free options. This awareness and the slightly increasing costs to consumers hopefully contribute to reducing consumption. Finally, it contributes to reducing inequality by making all enterprises along the supply chain liable thus avoiding what currently happens: that high social and environmental costs are shifted to countries with low wages and little social protection and low environmental standards. By itself supply chain legislation does not protect and allow regeneration of forests but implementing sustainable sourcing regions with well-enforced forest protection can achieve this ambition. How to navigate transformative change using the building blocks Most transformations in the Global South require transformation in the Global North as well. Thus, transformative change requires coordinated action at multiple levels and across actors, sectors, countries and continents. The EU as one of the largest single markets and an important political player has the potential to lead by example and the European Green Deal explicitly proposes to do so. In a sense the policy proposal contains the main elements proposed here: Its vision it to “transform the EU into a modern, resource-efficient and competitive economy, ensuring: • no net emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050 • economic growth decoupled from resource use • no person and no place left behind”. The EU Taxonomy on Sustainable Finance provides important knowledge and is a first step to shifting investments from unsustainable to sustainable production. The FLEGT initiative takes supply chain regulation another step forward. The farm-to-fork strategy envisages important steps to more sustainability in the agri-food system although it does not make the shift to regenerative agriculture (see Box 17). The goal of leaving no one behind addresses inequality but emancipatory agency is not stepped up beyond the provisions on participation and right to information already in place before the Green Deal. In Chapter 6.1.2, we have outlined ideas for transforming the agri-food system, one of the most prominent drivers of biodiversity loss and deforestation and an important contributor to pollution of the oceans. Figure 22, building on Loorbach and Oxenaar (2018), shows how measures can support system transformation and how the other building blocks of the framework can be linked to this. The figure is nearly an illustration how elements interact and support each otherin addressing drivers of degradation, measures need to be specified for each country’s context. 8 Main findings and implications Box 17: Implementing the new Biodiversity Strategy in the European Union With the European Green Deal (EC 2019), a high level of ambition has been formulated towards transformation. The new Biodiversity Strategy (EC 2020a) is part of this deal and implementation will be supported by significantly enhancing the European Science-Policy-Interface for biodiversity governance. Complementary initiatives have been put in place: a Biodiversity Knowledge Centre has been established to facilitate knowledge sharing and cross-sectional policy dialogue, a Biodiversity Partnership has been created to boost related research funding in co-ordinated programmes between Member States and the EC (and thus supporting better implementation of biodiversity research and innovation in Europe), a science service will help to synthesise and make all relevant results available to policy makers to support implementation of the strategy. Also, the strategy will aim to stimulate tax systems and pricing to better reflect real environmental costs (including biodiversity loss), and integration of biodiversity into public and business decision-making. Among others, the strategy points to the synergies with climate change and Covid-19 recovery measures and aims to allocate at least €20 billion per year for spending on nature. The European Green Deal also includes the attempt to change the agri-food system, its ‘Farm-to-fork strategy’ (EC 2020b) represents the first step towards food systems transformation, with ambitious and concrete targets on pesticides, fertilizers, organic farming, antimicrobial resistance and climate goals to be achieved by 2030. This strategy has been widely recognised for its game-changing potential. However, its success will depend on the level of ambition in the implementation and on its alignment with other EU policy strategies, particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). The CAP reform has been controversial and proven not to be adjusted sufficiently to environmental and biodiversity commitments, underscoring both the extent of the challenge and the need for changing our agri-food system. 128 129 Figure 22: Illustration how building blocks can inspire combinations of measures to enhance transformative change, using the example of agri-food systems (building on Loorbach and Oxenaar 2018) Vision Life in dignity for all, SDGs achieved optimisAtion Build emancipatory agency destABiLisAtion disruption stABiLisAtion institutionALisAtion experimentAtion AcceLerAtion emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 BreAkdoWn 9 pHAse out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 1 2 3 4 5 Transformative ambitions as guidance Production without external costs Fair distribution of benefits Safeguard, restore & allow recovery of global commons Balanced & responsible consumption Outcome Resilient agri-food systems provide healthy food for all and safeguard global commons EVOLVING NARRATIVES Living incomes Regenerative agriculture Future generations considered Healthy ecosystems 2 TRANSFORM PHASE OUT ENVISION & ADAPT BUILD (BOTTOM UP) Transform (top down) Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) OptimisatiOn Invest in technology Promote corporate social & environmental standards Analyse institutional inertia & cognitive myopia against change institutiOnalisatiOn Hold companies liable along entire agrisupply chain Set up policy framework for sustainable food sovereignty Societal dialogues & transition arenas Reflexive monitoring DestabilisatiOn Raise consumer awareness (nutrition campaigns) End harmful subsidies Diagnose political economy of agri-sectors; develop strategies to tackle resistance stabilisatiOn Strong international accountability Disrupt Establish regulations to internalise »true cost of food« Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Phase out the unsustainable elements experimentatiOn Pilot sustainable agri-food systems Pilot sustainable supply chains Support farmer seed systems breakDOwn Training & retraining Globally apply restrictions on agripollutants acceleratiOn Shift funding & technical support to sust. intensification Support regional circular economy Support small scale diversified farming phase Out Divestment from conventional agroindustrial business models Financial support for stranded assets emergence Reshape finance Support consumer / producer cooperatives Visioning & imagining Vision Healthy people on a healthy planet: SDGs achieved OptimisatiOn Build emancipatory agency EVOLVING NARRATIVES DestabilisatiOn DisruptiOn stabilisatiOn institutiOnalisatiOn experimentatiOn acceleratiOn emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 breakDOwn 9 phase Out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Apply sustainability conditions »bottom lines« as guidance Production and consumption within planetary boundaries Living wages or incomes Future generations considered Life in dignity Outcome Resilient agri-food systems do feed the world 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 3 Transform (top down) Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) OptimisatiOn Invest in technology Promote corporate social & environmental standards Analyse institutional inertia & cognitive myopia against change institutiOnalisatiOn Hold companies liable along entire agrisupply chain Set up policy framework for sustainable food sovereignty Societal dialogues & transition arenas Reflexive monitoring DestabilisatiOn Raise consumer awareness (nutrition campaigns) End harmful subsidies Diagnose political economy of agri-sectors; develop strategies to tackle resistance stabilisatiOn Strong international accountability Disrupt Establish regulations to internalise »true cost of food« Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Phase out the unsustainable elements experimentatiOn Pilot sustainable agri-food systems Pilot sustainable supply chains Support farmer seed systems breakDOwn Training & retraining Globally apply restrictions on agripollutants acceleratiOn Shift funding & technical support to sust. intensification Support regional circular economy Support small scale diversified farming phase Out Divestment from conventional agroindustrial business models Financial support for stranded assets emergence Reshape finance Support consumer / producer cooperatives Visioning & imagining Vision Healthy people on a healthy planet: SDGs achieved OptimisatiOn Build emancipatory agency EVOLVING NARRATIVES DestabilisatiOn DisruptiOn stabilisatiOn institutiOnalisatiOn experimentatiOn acceleratiOn emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 breakDOwn 9 phase Out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Apply sustainability conditions »bottom lines« as guidance Production and consumption within planetary boundaries Living wages or incomes Future generations considered Life in dignity Outcome Resilient agri-food systems do feed the world 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 3 Transform (top down) Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) OptimisatiOn Invest in technology Promote corporate social & environmental standards Analyse institutional inertia & cognitive myopia against change institutiOnalisatiOn Hold companies liable along entire agrisupply chain Set up policy framework for sustainable food sovereignty Societal dialogues & transition arenas Reflexive monitoring DestabilisatiOn Raise consumer awareness (nutrition campaigns) End harmful subsidies Diagnose political economy of agri-sectors; develop strategies to tackle resistance stabilisatiOn Strong international accountability Disrupt Establish regulations to internalise »true cost of food« Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Phase out the unsustainable elements experimentatiOn Pilot sustainable agri-food systems Pilot sustainable supply chains Support farmer seed systems breakDOwn Training & retraining Globally apply restrictions on agripollutants acceleratiOn Shift funding & technical support to sust. intensification Support regional circular economy Support small scale diversified farming phase Out Divestment from conventional agroindustrial business models Financial support for stranded assets emergence Reshape finance Support consumer / producer cooperatives Visioning & imagining Vision Healthy people on a healthy planet: SDGs achieved OptimisatiOn Build emancipatory agency EVOLVING NARRATIVES DestabilisatiOn DisruptiOn stabilisatiOn institutiOnalisatiOn experimentatiOn acceleratiOn emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 breakDOwn 9 phase Out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Apply sustainability conditions »bottom lines« as guidance Production and consumption within planetary boundaries Living wages or incomes Future generations considered Life in dignity Outcome Resilient agri-food systems do feed the world 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 3 Transformative knowledge Transform (top down) Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) OptimisatiOn Invest in technology Promote corporate social & environmental standards Analyse institutional inertia & cognitive myopia against change institutiOnalisatiOn Hold companies liable along entire agrisupply chain Set up policy framework for sustainable food sovereignty Societal dialogues & transition arenas Reflexive monitoring DestabilisatiOn Raise consumer awareness (nutrition campaigns) End harmful subsidies Diagnose political economy of agri-sectors; develop strategies to tackle resistance stabilisatiOn Strong international accountability Disrupt Establish regulations to internalise »true cost of food« Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Phase out the unsustainable elements experimentatiOn Pilot sustainable agri-food systems Pilot sustainable supply chains Support farmer seed systems breakDOwn Training & retraining Globally apply restrictions on agripollutants acceleratiOn Shift funding & technical support to sust. intensification Support regional circular economy Support small scale diversified farming phase Out Divestment from conventional agroindustrial business models Financial support for stranded assets emergence Reshape finance Support consumer / producer cooperatives Visioning & imagining Vision Healthy people on a healthy planet: SDGs achieved OptimisatiOn Build emancipatory agency EVOLVING NARRATIVES DestabilisatiOn DisruptiOn stabilisatiOn institutiOnalisatiOn experimentatiOn acceleratiOn emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 breakDOwn 9 phase Out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Apply sustainability conditions »bottom lines« as guidance Production and consumption within planetary boundaries Living wages or incomes Future generations considered Life in dignity Outcome Resilient agri-food systems do feed the world 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 3 Transform (top down) Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) Build emancipatory agency Understand how to change the system (transformative knowledge) OptimisatiOn Invest in technology Promote corporate social & environmental standards Analyse institutional inertia & cognitive myopia against change institutiOnalisatiOn Hold companies liable along entire agrisupply chain Set up policy framework for sustainable food sovereignty Societal dialogues & transition arenas Reflexive monitoring DestabilisatiOn Raise consumer awareness (nutrition campaigns) End harmful subsidies Diagnose political economy of agri-sectors; develop strategies to tackle resistance stabilisatiOn Strong international accountability Disrupt Establish regulations to internalise »true cost of food« Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Phase out the unsustainable elements experimentatiOn Pilot sustainable agri-food systems Pilot sustainable supply chains Support farmer seed systems breakDOwn Training & retraining Globally apply restrictions on agripollutants acceleratiOn Shift funding & technical support to sust. intensification Support regional circular economy Support small scale diversified farming phase Out Divestment from conventional agroindustrial business models Financial support for stranded assets emergence Reshape finance Support consumer / producer cooperatives Visioning & imagining Vision Healthy people on a healthy planet: SDGs achieved OptimisatiOn Build emancipatory agency EVOLVING NARRATIVES DestabilisatiOn DisruptiOn stabilisatiOn institutiOnalisatiOn experimentatiOn acceleratiOn emergence Understand how to change the system (Transformative Knowledge) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 breakDOwn 9 phase Out 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 3 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 Apply sustainability conditions »bottom lines« as guidance Production and consumption within planetary boundaries Living wages or incomes Future generations considered Life in dignity Outcome Resilient agri-food systems do feed the world 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 6 7 8 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 3 Transform (top down) Build (bottom up) a sustainable agri-food system Envision and adapt (ideas for phasing in) Phase out the unsustainable elements Each numbered dot corresponds to a measure aiming at phasing in (blue), phasing out (red), increasing agency (purple), or generating transformative knowledge (yellow). The elements in green represent the vision, from an analytical perspective we consider the ambitions as part of the vision, as they provide orientation on what needs to transform in order to allow global commons to thrive and be sustainably managed. 130 9 (Policy) Recommendations for enabling sustainability transformation of global commons This chapter derives recommendations in terms of policy ideas and measures for supporting transformative change. It builds on the main findings elaborated in Chapter 8 (see Figure 20). The transformation aspired should allow global commons such as biodiversity, forests and the ocean to thrive and enable the global community to sustainably manage them in the context of the SDGs. In Chapter 8, we outline what is needed based on the conceptual framework and its building blocks and conclude that such transformative change requires coordinated action and partnerships at multiple levels, across actors, sectors, countries and continents. Therefore, Germany (and all other countries4) can and should support transformation for global commons in three different yet mutually enhancing roles: 1. ‘Transform in Germany and within the EU’: Transformation will not succeed if affluent industrialised societies do not make substantial and quick progress in reducing their production and consumption footprints. This includes the footprint of German businesses in other parts of the world (see Section 9.2). 2. ‘Forge international policy for transformation’: Germany has significant room-to-manoeuvre for co-shaping international commitments and global policy processes. This influence can accelerate ambition and action on all types of sustainability agendas; in particular as a strong voice within the EU and G7. Germany can contribute to significant innovations changing global policy and regulation concerning, for example, supply chains, liabilities, rules for the finance and insurance sectors (see Section 9.3). 3. ‘Practice development cooperation which supports transformation in other parts of the world‘: This can range from financial and technical support for achieving multilaterally agreed sustainability objectives, to supporting countries to participate in revising international trade and supply chain policies, to strengthening public deliberation and search for transformation visions within partner countries (see Section 9.4). Phasing out the support for unsustainable practices is an essential task in all three roles. Within these three main clusters of action, all stakeholders (public, private and civil society) have individual, complementary and nested roles to play. Adopting a genuine whole of society and a whole of government approach should become the norm for any initiative. This will help to facilitate synergies, manage trade-offs and to develop joint solutions. All societal groups can contribute to triggering and mutually enhancing transformative change. Nevertheless, governments play a central role and are the main actors to agree on and to enact the measures recommended. Most of these measures are intended to change the rules and thereby the incentives and reference frames for civil society and the private sector. Their successful implementation will require strong support from different sets of stakeholders in Germany, in the EU and beyond, including different sector ministries, civil society, private sector, research organisations and others. Resistance, also from outside the EU, should be anticipated and actively addressed. Ideally, by providing clear guidance and motivation, measures enable all actors to contribute to the envisioned transformation. The process carried out for deriving recommended policy ideas and measures is illustrated in Figure 23. 4While this report has been written with the support of the German Ministry for international cooperation which requested specific recommendations, transformative change can only be achieved by collaboration across ministries and sectors. Recommendations therefore go beyond the scope of this ministry. Similarly, recommended measures could and should also be taken by other countries, as no single country can achieve the required changes alone. 131 9 (Policy) Recommendations for enabling sustainability transformation of global commons Figure 23: Building on ambitions to derive measures in different roles Cross-cutting challenges for global commons Ambitions Barriers to consider Measures for transformative change Production exceeds ecological capacities Socioeconomic inequality Overconsumption & excessive waste Production based on full cost accounting Balanced & responsible consumption Reduce socioeconomic inequalities Safeguard, restore & allow recovery of global commons Regulate to enable sustainable production & consumption vested interests path dependencies weak global institutions resistance / hesitation to change Strenghten right-based approaches Empower societal debate VISION Building Blocks for transformative change Global commons increasingly degraded & lost ... KNOW LEDGE DYNA MICS AGEN CY GOVERNANCE BIODIVERSITY FORESTS THE OCEAN CLIMATE SYSTEM SUSTAINABLE MANAGEMENT OF GLOBAL COMMONS German policies and Germany’s role in the EU Germany’s role in international cooperation German Development Cooperation Strengthen regulatory approaches & certification processes Regulate global supply chains Tie support to implementation of SDGs Support implementation of European Green Deal Assert primacy of human & environmental rights law Strengthen sustainable & green finance Engage in societal debate & strive for new alliances Support design of post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework Intensify successful multi-stakeholder partnerships ... ... ... Recommendations for all three roles [Document text truncated for crawler view.]