Entry points for upscaling findings at relevant scales identified based on consultations with key enabling players: EU policy makers and businesses. Report No D4.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B

1.1.5 2 PLANET4B receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 101082212. This project is funded by UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) under the UK government’s Horizon Europe funding guarantee. This work has received funding from the Swiss State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation (SERI). Views and opinions are of those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union, European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland. The European Union, the European Commission, the government of the United Kingdom, or the government of Switzerland cannot be held responsible for them. iii Key deliverable information Deliverable number D4.1 Deliverable title Entry points for upscaling findings at relevant scales identified based on consultations with key enabling players: EU policy makers and businesses Task leader UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Corresponding author Genevieve Beaufoy Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description As a result of consultations with key enabling players, entry points within specific business and policy processes (e.g. implementation of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, EU Climate Law, post-2020 global biodiversity framework, Corporate non-financial ESG reporting, Agenda 2030 for Sustainable Development and the SDGs) are identified to maximise potential policy uptake and impact of the project. Project acronym PLANET4B Project title understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making Starting date 01st November 2022 Duration 36 months Website https://planet4b.eu/ Project coordination and scientific lead team Ilkhom Soliev; Alex Franklin; Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler iv Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 20/09/2025 Authors: Genevieve Beaufoy (UNEP-WCMC); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Ana Lambert (UNEP-WCMC) and Fabiana Spinelli (UNEP-WCMC) 0.2 Draft 24/10/2025 Reviewers: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Blanka Louckova (CG) 0.3 Draft 29/10/2025 Authors: Genevieve Beaufoy (UNEP-WCMC); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Ana Lambert (UNEP-WCMC) and Fabiana Spinelli (UNEP-WCMC) 1.0 Final 31/10/2025 Reviewers: Torsten Wähler (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG) ; Zsuzsanna Kiràly (GD); Blanka Louckova (CG) ; Vinícius Mendes (RU) ; Elif Tugba Simsek (CG ); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU ) Recommended citation Beaufoy, G., Booth, C., Lambert, A., & Spinelli, F. (2025). Entry points for upscaling findings at relevant scales identified based on consultations with key enabling players: EU policy makers and businesses . Report No D4.1 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17251053 Rights and license This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. The Creative Commons Attribution license allows re-distribution and re-use of a licensed work on the condition that the creator is appropriately credited. Read more. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the PLANET4B project partners for their interest and receptiveness to discussing and learning about policy in the context of Work Package 4. The authors would also like to thank the research consultation participants for their time and willingness to share their expertise and insights on policy and business processes. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CAP Common Agricultural Policy CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CDE Communication, Dissemination and Exploitation CEO Chief Executive Officers CSRD Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive CU Coventry University EU European Union EUDR EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products FGMC UK Forest Governance, Markets and Climate Programme GEF Global Environment Facility JRC Joint Research Centre KPI Key Performance Indicator MOOC Massive Open Online Course NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research PLANET4B Understanding Plural values, Intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, Behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision-making RU Radboud University SDGs Sustainable Development Goals UK United Kingdom UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa WP Work Package 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2 2 Ensuring the policy and business relevance of the PLANET4B project ........... 4 2.1 Mapping the policy landscapes of PLANET4B’s research ....................................... 4 2.2 Embedding policy considerations in other work packages and tasks ................... 5 2.3 Feeding PLANET4B’s research into policy discussions .......................................... 5 2.4 Consultations with key enabling players in policy and business ........................... 6 3 Identifying entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes ................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Methodology for conducting the research consultations ........................................ 6 4 Results ................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Results from interviews with policy experts ........................................................... 12 4.2 Results from focus groups with business actors ................................................... 15 5 Entry points for PLANET4B’s research and outputs in policy and business processes ................................................................................................................. 17 5.1 Entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy processes .......... 18 5.2 Entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in business processes ..... 20 6 Reflections on the findings of the research consultations ............................... 22 7 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 23 References ................................................................................................................ 24 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 26 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 26 Annex ........................................................................................................................ 27 Example policy fact sheet developed for the Graz case study on urban food gardens (Annex 1) ........................................................................................................................... 27 Master list of questions for interviews with policy experts (Annex 2) ........................ 31 Master list of questions for focus group discussions with business actors (Annex 3) ........................................................................................................................................... 32 2 Executive summary • Task 4.1 set out to ensure the policy relevance of the PLANET4B project and identify “entry points” for the uptake of PLANET4B’s findings in business and policy processes, based on consultations with policy and business actors. • Throughout the three years of the PLANET4B project, multiple activities were undertaken in Task 4.1 to help ensure the policy and business relevance of the project and its outputs. These activities included developing and maintaining a policy mapping database and sharing policy-related information with PLANET4B project partners, feeding PLANET4B’s research into policy discussions through open calls for input, and ensuring the active participation of WP4 in all work packages to integrate policy considerations across the project. • In the final year of the PLANET4B project, research consultations were conducted with policy experts and business actors, for the purpose of identifying potential entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes. • Interview consultations with policy experts revealed that biodiversity action is often hindered by shifting political priorities and limited inclusion of diverse values and perspectives. Interviewees expressed that transformative change for biodiversity depends as much on cultural and behavioural shifts as on regulatory reform. Embedding behavioural and social science insights into policy design, alongside participatory and intersectional approaches, was viewed as essential for creating equitable, credible and lasting pathways for change. • Focus groups with business actors revealed that effective biodiversity action relies on having senior leadership who champion biodiversity, clear regulation, and a company culture that promotes care for nature. Participants highlighted that framing biodiversity in terms of business risk, opportunity, and competitiveness is critical for gaining buy-in from senior leadership to address the company’s impacts on biodiversity. Embedding biodiversity objectives into governance structures, performance indicators, and employee engagement activities can help to mainstream pro-biodiversity values and behaviours across companies. • This Deliverable is useful for policymakers and business actors who want to better understand how PLANET4B’s research can improve the prioritisation of biodiversity in policy and business processes. The findings in this Deliverable will also be useful to other Horizon Europe-funded projects involved in researching solutions for integrating biodiversity into policy and business processes. 1 Introduction Addressing the environmental, social and economic costs of biodiversity loss requires not only the generation of new research and the recognition of diverse forms of knowledge, but also effective mechanisms for integrating knowledge and research findings into policy and business decision-making processes (Runhaar et al., 2024). Ensuring that project outcomes are relevant and actionable for policy and business communities is a key objective of PLANET4B. This aim responds to the knowledgeaction gap that is particularly stark in the context of tackling biodiversity loss, whereby 3 increasing knowledge of the detrimental socio-ecological impacts of biodiversity loss fails to translate to transformative policy and business actions (Sarkki et al., 2024). Research reveals that, historically, policy measures for tackling biodiversity loss have tended to focus on ecological targets and other technical fixes (IPBES, 2022). However, the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) Transformative Change Assessment (2024) highlights that real solutions require systemic shifts in how societies are organised, governed, and regulated for tackling biodiversity loss will require deep, systems-wide shifts in “views, structures and practices” (IPBES, 2024: 12). Identifying entry points for such change therefore demands holistic perspectives and transdisciplinary knowledge or else they risk oversimplifying complex socio-ecological dynamics (O’Brien, 2011; Scoones et al., 2020; Vogel & O’Brien, 2022). In this sense, “entry points” for change cannot be reduced to a single policy instrument or interventions at single moments in time, but rather as actions that occur over time and encompass multi-dimensional types of change across views, processes, institutions, and scales. Grounded in transdisciplinary research, PLANET4B’s objective is to understand how people's values, behaviours and diverse intersecting identities influence how decisions about biodiversity are made on the interpersonal, intrapersonal and institutional levels. PLANET4B’s second objective is to channel this transdisciplinary knowledge into stakeholder interventions and policy recommendations that can improve the prioritisation of biodiversity in decision-making. By doing so, the project aims to strengthen the link between scientific evidence, diverse perceptions of biodiversity, and decision-making processes. PLANET4B’s Work Packages (WPs) are structured around achieving these objectives. WPs 1–2 built the theoretical foundations of the project by advancing frameworks and methods for prioritising biodiversity in decisionmaking through the lenses of systems thinking and leverage points, plural knowledge, values and behaviour change and intersectionality. WP3 empirically tested these approaches in a series of place-based and extensive (sector-specific) case studies. Finally, drawing on the results of WPs 1–3, WP4 synthesises findings into actionable pathways and recommendations for improving the prioritisation of biodiversity in policy and business decision-making processes. The objectives of Task 4.1 are to ensure the policy relevance of PLANET4B’s research and to identify entry points in business and policy processes for upscaling the project’s findings. To do this, WP4 ongoing activities throughout the project, to help ensure the policy relevance of PLANET4B’s research and outputs (see section 2). In the final year of the project, WP4 hosted research consultations with “key enabling players” working in the spheres of biodiversity policy and business to identify potential “entry points” for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in business and policy processes. In Task 4.1, the term “entry points” is used to refer to opportunities within business and policy processes, where the application of PLANET4B’s research could support a range of practical, cultural, and behavioural changes to improve how biodiversity is prioritised in decision making. This deliverable summarises the actions undertaken in Task 4.1 and their outcomes. Section 2 begins by providing an overview of the activities undertaken by WP4 during the project to help ensure the policy relevance of PLANET4B’s research and outputs. Section 3 describes the research consultations that were undertaken in the final year 4 of the PLANET4B project, with the aim of identifying “entry points” for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes. Section 3.1 includes a description of the methodological approach that was used to plan, coordinate and host the research consultations with policy and business actors and the methodology for analysing the results of the research consultations. Section 3.2 presents the qualitative results of the consultations and section 3.3 links the results of the consultations with potential entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes. Section 3.4 reflects on the outcomes of the research consultations. Section 4 provides concluding remarks. 2 Ensuring the policy and business relevance of the PLANET4B project Task 4.1 set out to ensure the policy and business relevance of the PLANET4B project. To achieve this aim, a range of activities were undertaken throughout the timeframe of the project. This section provides a summary of the actions undertaken in Task 4.1. 2.1 Mapping the policy landscapes of PLANET4B’s research In the first year of the project, UNEP-WCMC conducted online consultations with PLANET4B’s intensive and extensive case studies to discuss their case study topics and the policies most relevant to each of the topics. Based on these case study consultations, WP4 conducted an exercise to map biodiversity-related policies (at the national, EU and global level) linked to the case study topics. The mapping exercise also identified EU and international projects and initiatives of relevance to each case study. The policy mapping exercise culminated in a “policy mapping database”, with with a list of relevant policies per case study. Using the policy mapping database, WP4 developed and distributed a “policy fact sheet” to each of the case studies (see example policy fact sheet in Annex 1). The policy fact sheets contained a summary of all national, EU and global policy instruments of most relevance to their case study topic, including specific goals, targets and text, as well as a list of relevant projects and initiatives. The purpose of this exercise was to support the case studies to consider the policy relevance of their case study topics from the early stages of the project and in their subsequent activities in WP 1–4. Recognising that policy is often evolving, the policy mapping database was updated by UNEP-WCMC on an ongoing basis throughout the course of the project to ensure it remained current. In each year of the project, UNEP-WCMC met with each of the case studies to inform them about any new developments regarding the policies most relevant to their case study topics. The policy mapping database was also used to inform multiple tasks in WP4. For example, in Task 4.2 “Mapping of leverage points and transformative pathways for upscaling in EU and global contexts” (Loučková et al., 2025), CzechGlobe used the policy mapping database to assess alignment and gaps between each sector-specific transformative pathways and current biodiversity-related policies in each of the sector. Based on this analysis, CzechGlobe identified recommendations for how policy can better unlock transformative pathways for biodiversity in each of the sectors (agriculture, finance, trade, education and fashion). 11 mining corporation, a multinational company in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and an engineering, design and consultancy company. Analysing the results of the consultations All interview and focus group data were transcribed and compiled in a structured database. A thematic analysis approach was applied, using a combination of inductive and deductive coding to capture both emergent insights and predefined analytical categories aligned with PLANET4B’s core research themes. • Step 1: involved initial open coding to identify recurring ideas, phrases, and themes • Step 2: grouped codes into broader thematic categories • Step 3: analyse the data to identify emergent entry points for the use of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes To strengthen validity, the codes and thematic categories were reviewed and discussed among the UNEP-WCMC research team to confirm their accuracy in relation to the raw data. Accordingly, the qualitative data was thematically analysed and coded according to the following emergent themes: • Political change and policy regression: data that emerged on the topic of a shifting EU policy landscape in light of current geopolitics, growing right-wing influence, inertia in environmental policy, the dilution of transformative interventions and diminishing ‘policy windows’. • Discourse and framing: this category relates to data that emerged on the importance of understanding diverse perspectives and nature-related discourses, and strategic framing and storytelling in research and policy dialogue. • Scales of change: this category relates to data that described a need for a combination and balance of bottom-up and top-down approaches in the context of transformative change. • Participation and incentives: this category of qualitative data described the role of consultations, participation, multi-scalar dialogues, incentive systems, key politicians and agents of change in driving behaviour change. • PLANET4B themes: this category of data relates to values, intersectionality, attitudes, norms, behaviour, social learning, transformative change and biodiversity. This method was repeated with data collected from focus groups with business actors and resulted in the following emergent categories: • Regulation: this category relates to qualitative data describing laws, regulatory instruments and compliance pressures. • Strategy and governance: relating to the institutionalisation of nature consideration and biodiversity goals into formal company strategy, governance, and KPIs. • Gatekeepers and champions: this category of data referred to the importance of strong leadership and internal champions. • Discourse and framing: this data relates to framing nature action in business terms and pitching change at senior levels. 12 • Behavioural and cultural engagement: this category of data relates to the role of incentives, values and methods of internal engagement in biodiversity related issues. • Scales of change: this data relates to company size and area of business, and appropriate starting points. Following this first phase of analysis, the data in each thematic category was analysed to deduce insights on the “policy and business entry points” where PLANET4B’s research could be most relevant and applicable (see Section 4). 4 Results This section provides an overview of the qualitative data gathered from the interviews with policy experts and the focus groups with business actors. 4.1 Results from interviews with policy experts From the interviews with policy experts, five interrelated themes emerged regarding “opportunities” and “challenges” for using research on values, behaviour, intersectionality and social inclusion to unlock transformative change in policy processes: • Political change and policy regression • Discourse and framing • Scales of change • Participation and incentives • Values, norms attitudes and behaviours Political change and policy regression Participants described a shifting political landscape whereby growing right-wing influence has prompted a political refocusing toward competitiveness and short-term economic goals, restraining more progressive 'policy windows'. Stagnation and regression in the area of environmental policy was emphasised, explained in part by geopolitical tensions and crises, and a lack of mainstream political backing for models of sustainable economic transformation. Despite past momentum and the development of strong policy frameworks with transformative potential, namely the Farm to Fork strategy and the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), such policy frameworks were described as being derailed and undermined. This was attributed to economic and geopolitical pressures and influence, and a disconnect between citizens and policymakers. Participants described tension between ambition and political feasibility; there is a sense of strategic compromise whereby policymakers recognise current measures fall short but opt for incremental, politically feasible steps. Senior policy expert #1 noted the diminishing influence of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) representing marginalised voices within EU policymaking processes, while Senior policy expert #3 expressed “I’ve been working on EU policies for 10+ years, and policies have never been so un-diverse as they are now.” Experts indicated that attempts to more thoroughly integrate biodiversity and social agendas within policy have been 13 weakened, with linkages between social and ecological issues described as “being forgotten” (Senior policy expert #2). Discourse and framing Policy experts described a landscape whereby different actors, such as businesses, governments, and civic communities define transformative change differently, often diluting its meaning. Participants emphasised that strategic communication, messaging and attention to the framing of issues and dissemination of research findings are crucial for gaining and retaining social legitimacy and policy traction for prioritising biodiversity in decision making processes and upscaling successful socioecological initiatives. Understanding the perspectives and nature-related discourses of those you wish to influence, such as communities, businesses, and government bodies was underscored. Putting “yourself in the shoes of the person you want to convince” (senior policy expert #2) was considered crucial. Interventions advocating for change and promoting ‘care for nature’ need to be reframed in terms of shared social and economic benefits, rather than just moral obligation; “[...] you need to reword this care for nature within these communities, within these groups, so people know that we’re doing it not only because it’s the ‘right thing to do’ but [...] show that it’s good for nature [and] it’s good for us, for our economy." (Senior policy expert #2). Similarly, senior policy expert #3 noted that there is a need for positive storytelling and an emphasis on what is working. To be compelling and drive policy momentum, research should be communicated with concrete examples illustrated with positive messages and “create something where people believe in the pathway.” These insights highlight that transformative change depends not only on robust evidence but also on compelling narratives that link environmental goals to societal wellbeing and economic opportunity. Scales of change Policy experts emphasised the importance of social readiness, understanding local contexts and cultural nuances, and balancing top-down and bottom-up input to adaptively scale transformative interventions. Senior policy expert #2 noted that rapid, top-down change risks alienating the public and undermining support for transformative policies like the Farm to Fork Strategy and the EUDR, which experienced pushback in part because they were perceived as out of touch with everyday citizens. Pilot projects and case studies were identified as key tools for inspiring policy development and innovation. Linking closely with the focus on discourse and framing, participants noted that local experiments can act as models for broader implementation if lessons are effectively captured and strategically communicated and adapted. Senior policy expert #3 advised that research projects should “generate good examples and case studies, and then use them as a blueprint for imagining how this can be replicated and scaled up in the EU.” Senior policy #2 outlined a suggested method of disseminating research results “You go political group by political group. You take one country; you go deep inside a particular municipality. Go to local constituencies. Go at the regional level. Try to go to three different places with different political ways of talking about the research and policy”. 14 Importantly, while participants expressed that transformative local initiatives offer useful insights that are transferrable across Europe, the policy experts also noted that local contexts, socio-cultural differences and diverse perspectives are key and must be considered in all policy planning and implementation processes. Further, while interview responses suggest that strategic communication and dissemination of project and case study results on transformative change are key to upscaling, governance mechanisms that enable and encourage such initiatives were highlighted as important. Senior policy expert #2 explained, “We are naive, [...] believing that we’ve done a lot of good initiatives, and they will all be replicated and upscaled. You plant a seed, and you water it, but there must be fertilizer from the top, incentives.” This underscores that interdependence between local innovation and structural governance support in achieving systems-wide change. 3.1.4 Participation and incentives Participation and incentives Broad participatory structures, dialogue between stakeholders, incentives, and political champions were pinpointed by policy experts as crucial to move from consultation to upscaling and mainstreaming transformative interventions. Methods of participation that capture plural values and perspectives, and multi-scalar (local-national-regionalEU) dialogues were described as important for effective policy change. However, participants also emphasised that participatory and consultation processes alone are not effective without “fertiliser from the top” (Senior policy expert #2), such as supportive funding programmes, political backing, and incentives. While participants expressed that there are structures for engagement and consultation in policy processes, one participant perceived the EU system to be prioritising and rewarding business-as-usual behaviour. Participants noted that there are opportunities for policy actions to unlock systems change, especially in sectors like agriculture, where changing incentives in favour of protecting biodiversity could pave the way for change. Further, participants described how transformative shifts often hinge on key political figures and alliances. Senior policy expert #1 explained, “The research-policy bridge is working if you have the brokers, the in-between groups. These are the most important ones, alongside forming a good political argument.” The insight in this theme is that participation alone does not guarantee transformation, it must be coupled with supportive incentives, political leadership, and intermediaries capable of navigating complex policy landscapes. Values, norms attitudes and behaviour References to values, norms, attitudes and behaviours were prevalent in all interviews with policy experts. Participants highlighted that dominant epistemologies that humans are separate from nature was underscored as a critical barrier to transformative socioecological change. As Senior Policy Expert #2 expressed “The big barriers [that weaken the EU’s commitments and action on biodiversity] are philosophical. It’s on our understanding of who we are as an animal species, on how we behave, everything is linked to this. [...] The higher you get in the political realm the less this is visible.” Participants emphasised the need for deeper cultural and structural transformation in values and behaviour through education. Senior policy expert #2 emphasised “Our ecosystems are the basis of our economies; this isn’t widely understood. We need a lot of work on education.” 15 There was a perception that evidence from experimental and creative participatory research, and effective dissemination of this research, could help to influence the policy agenda. As Senior policy expert #3 expressed “If you want to influence the Commission now, don’t go to their mainstream agenda. Work with people in the art domain. Filmmaking.” There was a sense among participants that more creative mechanisms of conducting and disseminating research are needed to counteract dominant epistemological beliefs shaping human-nature relations. 4.2 Results from focus groups with business actors The focus groups with business actors revealed several recurring themes on the challenges and opportunities for using knowledge on values, attitudes and behaviour change in business contexts. Four key themes emerged: • Regulation, strategy and governance • Gatekeepers, champions and engagement mechanisms • Communication and framing • Scales of change Regulation, strategy and governance During the focus groups, business actors from numerous multinational companies emphasised that in order to encourage pro-biodiversity behaviours, strong regulatory measures are needed that hold companies to account. Many companies emphasised that taking action on nature primarily happens in response to legal or compliance pressures rather than due to an embedded ethos. As business actor #1 noted, “the stick is often more effective than the carrot”. Clear policy guidance and robust regulation was described as essential to ensure accountability and the institutionalisation of measures for protecting biodiversity. Business actor #4 explained, “If the company doesn’t already have an interest in mitigating impacts on biodiversity, it takes a lot of time and effort for sustainability teams to get buy-in from the company directors. However, when the political landscape shifts away from taking action on nature (e.g. scaling back of the EU Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD)), this suddenly sends a message that “taking action on nature doesn’t matter as much as we thought” and the company directors lose interest and motivation.” Participants highlighted that, for companies who do commit to taking action on biodiversity, for example by developing a nature or sustainability strategy, formally institutionalising the strategy across the company’s operations is key to maintaining progress and preventing regression when supportive leaders leave the company. A participant representing a multinational food processing and packaging company explained their experience of this process: “We were fortunate to get buy-in from the company's directors, so they were willing to commit to developing a “strategy on nature” for the whole company. We established a cross-company working group to identify suitable goals, targets and KPIs to be addressed across the company and made it really clear to teams and individuals what their responsibilities were for achieving those KPIs. It did take some effort to improve people’s understanding of “why biodiversity matters” across the company, but having this accountability mechanism has been critical. Our approach was 1) engagement and ownership (get people across the company on board), 2) governance (set a clear governance structure for implementing and monitoring progress), 3) capacity and resources (provide necessary 16 training and capacity for implementing actions), 4) collaboration (work with teams across the company to deliver.” This account reflects a growing awareness that durable change requires embedding biodiversity into formal decision-making processes, supported by governance mechanisms, leadership engagement, and clear accountability. Gatekeepers, champions and engagement mechanisms Business actors expressed that change is most likely to occur and most effective when internal ‘champions’ drive and model pro-biodiversity behaviour. A participant representing a global provider of renewable products in packaging, biomaterials and wooden construction stated “we have observed that there is a notable difference in the values and attitudes towards nature in our younger staff. They are coming into this industry with a real desire to tackle sustainability challenges.” Identifying champions and enlisting their support to drive action on nature was highlighted as a key step to inciting change. Importantly however, as was revealed in the interviews with policy experts, a combination of bottom-up and top-down efforts was underscored as important for impactful change. Strong leadership on biodiversity at the most senior levels of companies was emphasised as crucial for driving and sustaining actions on nature. Business actors also shared examples of methods used in their own companies to foster and encourage pro-biodiversity behaviours. Engagement tools such rewards, green teams, competitions with nature-related targets, and storytelling were cited as fostering emotional connection and participation. Participants described various experiential activities that have been used to generate a sense of care and responsibility for nature. As explained by business actor #5 “we ran an activity where people used e-DNA to find out what wildlife species we have at our operational sites. We shared this information with the company, framed in terms of “celebrating the variety of species we have at our sites” and people felt really proud about it.” These activities were viewed as effective for strengthening employees’ emotional connection to nature, suggesting that experiential engagement can play a critical role in normalising pro-biodiversity behaviours within business decisions. Communication and framing Similarly to interviews with policy experts, the focus groups with business actors also revealed the importance of strategically framing messages to encourage behaviour change within companies. Business actor #4 explained “When you’re trying to “pitch the case” to the directors, it’s important to speak their language. I always frame my arguments in terms of “business risk, business opportunities, and business compliance.” Similarly, business actor #1 added “What has worked well for me is pulling together really strong evidence with numbers and statistics, that taking action on sustainability is contributing to the company’s profits.” Participants expressed a need for more compelling examples or a compendium of case studies on the financial benefits of taking action on nature. Further, participants stated that including examples of what other companies are doing to reduce their impacts on nature (i.e. using peer influence) can be an effective way of framing the discussion. A need for resources, communication-related trainings, and tips on behaviour change tools for promoting action were identified by the focus group participants, to help influence and change internal culture and operations from within. Business actor #5 17 noted “We need training on how to “pitch the case for nature” so that when we get an opportunity to meet with the directors, we’re well equipped with the right tactics to convince them.” Similarly, understanding and/or developing personal and institutional values towards nature and increasing knowledge on the importance of biodiversity in business contexts was highlighted by participants. Participants also noted that compared to climate change, literacy on biodiversity is low in the private sector. Business actor #7 explained, “Although climate and biodiversity issues are intertwined, taking climate-related actions (e.g. reducing CO2 emissions) is a much more socialised concept and metrics for measuring climate footprint are much more advanced compared to measuring impact for biodiversity. As a result, within companies, awareness and knowledge for reducing impacts on biodiversity are really lacking.” This reinforces the need for accessible tools and shared learning platforms to enhance biodiversity literacy across the private sector. Scales of change Participants highlighted that the size of the company is an important factor when selecting the right approaches for encouraging pro-biodiversity behaviour change in a company. The size of the company should “inform when to use which levers to engage and motivate people” according to a participant representing a state-owned energy company. Participants representing large companies noted that opportunities to sit down with directors to pitch the ‘case for nature’ are rare. Therefore, those wanting to influence and incite change are under a lot of pressure to deliver the perfect pitch. Similarly, the preexisting values and culture within a company are important when considering the suitability of different interventions. As explained by business actor #6 “It’s important to be aware of where your company’s starting point is in terms of “values regarding nature”. For some companies, “value for nature” is imbedded into the company’s brand identity and ethos, but for others, there is no sense of “value for nature” at all. The “starting point” is important for informing what will be the most appropriate and effective method for influencing change.” In companies where there is no pre-existing ethos around nature, trying to encourage behaviour change through the framing of compliance, risk and performance may be a more effective starting point. These insights highlight that effective engagement requires context-sensitive approaches. For companies where biodiversity is not yet embedded in the corporate culture, framing arguments around risk management, compliance, and performance may be a more pragmatic entry point for change. As awareness grow, these levers can give way to more intrinsic motivations rooted in responsibility and ethics. 5 Entry points for PLANET4B’s research and outputs in policy and business processes Following the consultations with policy and business actors, and based on the findings of the analysis in Section 3.2, a number of potential entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s findings emerge. 18 Table 2. Summary of potential entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy and business processes. Entry points in policy processes Entry points in business processes Funding research that tests behavioural and social innovations for tackling biodiversity loss in real-world contexts. 1. Getting buy-in from senior leadership on biodiversity. Capturing and communicating examples and case studies demonstrating how transformative change for biodiversity can be achieved in practice, through a range of creative mediums. 2. Fostering a positive internal culture on biodiversity across the company. Embedding experiential nature education into mainstream education. 5.1 Entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in policy processes Based on the results of the interviews with policy experts, three entry points in policy processes were identified for the use of PLANET4B’s research and outputs: 1. Integration of knowledge on values and behaviours in policy design 2. Strategic framing of biodiversity issues in EU communication and dissemination 3. Designing more participatory policy processes Entry point 1: Integration of knowledge on values and behaviour into policy design Interviews with policy experts indicated that structural transformation begins with changes in values and norms. It was noted that current EU research and innovation frameworks often prioritise technological or economic solutions to tackling biodiversity loss over social and behavioural innovation. The need for greater investment in social learning and cultural initiatives that enable people to connect with nature and recognise biodiversity as integral to wellbeing, identity, and prosperity was emphasised. Interviews also indicated a need for research that offers good examples of methods for creatively and contextually engaging with diverse values and behaviours as a means of building cultural legitimacy and cultivating political will for taking actions that protect biodiversity. The findings of PLANET4B’s place-based and sector-specific case studies offer useful insights on what conditions and factors drive or constrain transformative actions for biodiversity (see D3.3 “Compendium of 11 Transformative change stories”). Deliverable 4.4’s policy note on “Enabling transformative change for biodiversity in Europe” outlines specific options for integrating plural values, behaviour change and intersectional social inclusion in EU and global policy processes. At the EU level, future iterations of the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 could place more focus on creating the “enabling conditions” needed to foster positive values and behaviours towards biodiversity at the local level, such as those identified in Deliverable 3.3 “Compendium of 11 Transformative Change Stories” and D4.4 policy note on transformative change for biodiversity in Europe. 19 Entry point 2: Strategic framing of biodiversity issues in EU communication and dissemination Interviews with policy experts highlighted the decisive role of discourse and framing in shaping attitudes and behaviours towards biodiversity across public, private and political spheres. Re-framing biodiversity issues in ways that resonate with different actor groups could be more effective for influencing change. Further, understanding the nature-related discourses of the actors (civic, political and corporate) that policy makers wish to reach can reveal important insights about the values that different actor groups associate with biodiversity. Knowing how different actor groups value and perceive biodiversity is an important starting point for strategically communicating messages about biodiversity in a way that is better tailored the values and attitudes of different actor groups. Linked to this, policy experts also called for research projects to “create something where people believe in the pathway,” and by conveying messages that frame biodiversity prioritisation as integral to social wellbeing and economic resilience. PLANET4B’s Deliverable 1.1 “Report on biodiversity and related concepts” provides an analytical framework for discourse analysis. When applied to different sources of discourse (policy discourse, media discourse, NGO discourse), this method of analysis can unlock insights on how different actor groups perceive and value biodiversity. This analytical framework can support EU policy makers who are responsible for designing and implementing biodiversity-related policies (e.g. those working in DG ENV) to strategically frame language in EU strategies and information campaigns that is more likely to mobilise different actor groups to take action. PLANET4B’s Deliverable 3.3 “Compendium of 11 Transformative change stories” communicate stories of change through a range of creative mediums (films, photoexhibitions, participatory art, and multimedia storytelling). These transformative change stories offer inspiration for how visions of change can be communicated in creative and engaging ways, an approach that can be adopted for EU information campaigns on transformative change for biodiversity. EU-level initiatives such as the European Climate Pact and Horizon Europe research dissemination strategies provide opportunities to communicate these messages. PLANET4B’s Deliverable 5.8 “Three comprehensive guidelines tailored for enabling players (civil society, policymakers and businesses)” provides guidance on different behavioural and communications tools for more effectively conveying information about biodiversity to different audiences. These guidelines could be particularly useful for EU-funded information campaigns that aim to encourage pro-biodiversity behaviours. The guidelines can also be used to have more effective dialogue with stakeholder groups during the design and implementation of policies. Entry point 3: Designing more participatory policy processes The interviewed policy experts emphasised that meaningful participation of affected communities and stakeholders in policy processes and biodiversity interventions are a prerequisite for just transformative change. They also perceived that while mechanisms for consultation and participation are common features of EU policymaking, representative bodies of marginalised voices are losing influence in policy processes. They felt that for transformative change to take root, participation must move beyond formal consultation toward co-creation and dialogue that integrates 20 diverse perspectives, local knowledge, and values throughout policy planning and implementation. Multi-scalar dialogues that link municipalities, regional authorities, and EU institutions, were identified as essential for ensuring that local realities shape policy design and implementation. PLANET4B’s Deliverable 1.3 “Methodological framework for intersectionality analysis” provides guidance on how to apply an intersectional lens in the context of biodiversity research and practice, to help reveal how different social categories influence who benefits and who is excluded. This methodological framework can be applied in a range of policy and practice contexts, to help design interventions, plans, and/or initiatives with an awareness of how different intersecting identities may affect people’s participation. Equipped with this information, policy actors can put appropriate measures in place to ensure participatory processes are more socially equitable. The use of intersectional analysis is relevant in almost all stages of the policy cycle. Firstly, when the need for a new or revised policy is identified in order to solve a particular issue(s), it would be important to understand how that issue affects different people in different ways (e.g. by conducting intersectional analysis). At the stage when new policy options are being formulated, using intersectional analysis would be particularly important to ensure that proposed policy options tackle the root causes of inequalities rather than exacerbating them. This involves examining how different policy measures might affect people differently across intersecting dimensions of identity. At the policy implementation, monitoring and evaluation stages, it is important to ensure that policy actions benefit different societal actors equally, supported by monitoring and evaluation to understand how policy interventions affect diverse groups of people. At all stages of the policy cycle, having inclusive, intersectional participatory mechanisms in place to allow people to voice their opinions on policies is key. This is another scenario where intersectional analysis could help to ensure that participatory processes truly support intersectional inclusion. Deliverable D1.7 “Transdisciplinary diagnostic framework for biodiversity decisionmaking assessment” serves as a methodological framework for designing transformative interventions in a way that accounts for plural values, diverse knowledge and intersectionality. The Transdisciplinary Diagnostic Framework is designed to help any actor, whether researchers, practitioners, civil society groups, or policymakers, to reflect on their own starting points when designing interventions. By encouraging this kind of reflection, the framework can support more inclusive, effective, and transformative policy design and implementation. This methodological framework could be particularly useful at the policy design stage, when considering how different policy interventions may be perceived and experiences differently by different actors. 5.2 Entry points for the uptake of PLANET4B’s research in business processes Based on the results of the focus groups with business actors, two key entry points were identified for the use of PLANET4B’s research and outputs in business processes: 1. Getting buy-in from senior leadership on biodiversity 2. Fostering a positive internal culture on biodiversity across the company 27 Annex Example policy fact sheet developed for the Graz case study on urban food gardens (Annex 1) Policy fact sheet – City food for biodiversity and inclusion – P4B case study This document serves to briefly present and explore relevant EU and international policy, existing initiatives and projects and relevant examples of good practice from other cities for the Graz case study that focusses on intersectional urban food production and access to biodiversity spaces in the city of Graz. 1 Relevant EU and international policy 1.1 International policy Sustainable Development Goals – SDG 111 – sustainable cities and communities SDG 11 seeks to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable. SDG 11 is composed of targets that are particularly relevant to the Graz case study. These are: Target 11.3: Inclusive and sustainable urbanisation “enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanisation and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries.”; Target 11.4: Protect the world’s cultural and natural heritage: Strengthen efforts to protect and safeguard the world’s cultural and natural heritage”; Target 11.5: Reduce the adverse effects of natural disasters “By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected and substantially decrease the direct economic losses relative to global gross domestic product caused by disasters, including water-related disasters, with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations”. Other relevant SDGs include SDG 1,2,3,5,10,13,15,16. Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction2 The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction cites cities as a key site to build resilience, develop early warning systems and develop infrastructure to reduce the mortality rate, damage and economic loss from disasters by 2030. The Framework identifies cities and local governments as key actors to build capacity and develop resources to reduce disaster risk by developing local (as well as national) disaster risk reduction plans. Specific mention of policies that relate to land use, urban planning, building codes and environmental and resource management are made to encourage the mainstreaming of safety-enhancing provisions into these sectors. More recently, the United Nations office for disaster risk reduction UNDRR working with the International Union for the Conservation of Nature have developed work and recommendations on the use of nature-based solutions for disaster risk reduction, with a strong focus on urban areas. Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework3 The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework sets out targets, in line with the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda to improve biodiversity, the benefits it provides to sustain human wellbeing and a healthy planet. Of the 21 targets laid out in the framework, certain targets are particularly relevant to the Graz case study. These are: Target 11: “Target 11. Maintain and enhance nature’s contributions to regulation of air quality, quality and quantity of water, and protection from hazards and extreme events for all people.”; Target 12: “Increase the area of, access to, and benefits from green and blue spaces, for human health and wellbeing in urban areas and other densely populated areas.”; Target 14: “Fully integrate biodiversity values into policies, regulations, planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies, accounts, and assessments of environmental impacts at all levels of government and across all sectors of the economy, ensuring that all activities and financial flows are aligned with biodiversity values.” 28 Paris Agreement4 The Paris Agreement sets out international targets for climate mitigation to hold “the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels”. The agreement sets out nationally determined contributions (NDC’s) that parties that countries will put forward to achieve the climate targets. Although the text of the agreement itself does not mention cities (it is the remit of national governments to decide how NDC’s will be enacted and through which scales of government), it recognises the importance of local government in work to contribute to adaptation, mitigation and capacity building efforts. Since the agreement, much has been developed regarding NDC relevance to sustainable urbanisation as laid out in this UNHABITAT report on the topic. 1.2 EU policy è EU Biodiversity Strategy for 20305 o The Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, part of the European Green Deal, aims to put Europe’s biodiversity on a path to recovery by 2030 to the benefit of people and the environment. The policy recognises the important of including urban nature, healthy ecosystems, green infrastructure into urban planning and public space. Ø EU Urban Greening Plans (read more about them here) o As part of the EU biodiversity strategy for 2030, the EU Commission has called upon European towns and cities of at least 20 000 inhabitants to “…develop ambitious Urban Greening Plans” including “measures to create biodiverse and accessible urban forests, parks and gardens; urban farms; green roofs and walls; treelined urban meadows and urban hedges.” o Urban greening plans should “…help improve connections between green spaces, eliminate the use of pesticides, limit excessive mowing of urban green spaces and other biodiversity harmful practices” o The EU promotes Urban greening plans as, when implemented, their measures contribute to climate adaption (reduce urban heat island effect) and disaster risk reduction (protection against flooding), improve air quality and strengthen connectivity between green spaces whilst contributing to providing spaces for recreation and social exchange. Ø EU Nature Restoration Law o The EU Nature Restoration Law seeks to direct restoration efforts in not just rural areas but towns, cities and peri-urban spaces. Depending on the powers of local and municipal authorities provided to them by national governments they will have access to instruments for integrated urban and territorial planning, as well as land use planning, regulation and development control. o Targets have direct and indirect impacts on regional and local authorities with some targets including things such as “No net loss of urban green spaces in every EU city, town and suburb by 2030” and “A minimum of 10% tree canopy cover in every EU city, town and suburb by 2050.” è EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change6 and EU Climate mitigation targets7 o The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change (2021) encourages urban planning, investment and policymaking that is climate informed and resilient. The commission emphasises the multitude of benefits of bringing nature into cities as part of climate adaptation strategies. The EU also promotes the use of nature based solutions as mitigation measures in urban and non-urban areas to meet its 2030 and 2050 climate targets 1.3 Other EU policies of relevance Other EU policies of relevance include: The EU Bioeconomy strategy, the EU Farm-to-Fork Strategy, the Water Framework Directive, the Habitats Directive, the Birds Directive, Land Use, 29 Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) Regulation, European Climate Pact, Sustainable Energy and Climate Action Plan (SECAP). 2 Relevant initiatives and EU projects The below EU initiatives outline work funded by the EU through various policies and funds. The EU budget for biodiversity is split between the Common Agricultural Policy, the European Regional Development Fund, the Cohesion Fund, the EU Solidarity Fund and Social Fund, which fund initiatives and work that relate to the themes of the Graz case study. The European Investment Bank considers adaptation within financing for integrated, sustainable urban renewal via its JESSICA programme. 2.1 EU and global Initiatives • The European Urban initiative (EUI), part of the EU Cohesion policy, has launched several calls for urban innovation projects relating to sustainable urban development. • URBACT funds and supports cities to develop an integrated set of actions for sustainable change, helping to build capacity for urban sustainability. • The Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, aims to engage and support cities and towns to commit to reaching their climate mitigation and adaptation targets. • Knowledge4Policy (K4P) is an EU Commission platform for evidence based policymaking. It includes a handbook on the impact of Nbs for practitioners which involves a lot of information on sustainable urban transformation. • The Green City Accord is a movement of European mayors committed to making cities cleaner and healthier. It aims to improve the quality of life for all EU citizens and accelerate the implementation of relevant EU environmental laws such as the EU biodiversity strategy and Climate Adaptation Strategy. • Civitas is one of the flagship programmes helping the European Commission achieve its sustainable mobility and transport goals under the European Green Deal. • Circular cities and regions initiative (CCRI) is an initiative supporting the implementation of local and regional circular economy solutions. • European Green Capital Award encourages cities to commit to ambitious goals to further environmental improvement. • European city facility The European City Facility (EUCF) aims to support municipalities and local authorities in developing Investment Concepts related to the implementation of actions identified in their climate and energy action plans. Note that the current call for a fixed grant of 60 000 euros is now open and will close June 30 and fund 70 beneficiaries. • Transition Network (Transition Towns): Transition is a movement of communities coming together at a local level to reimagine and rebuild our world based on principals of sustainability and community-led economic change. • C40 cities is a global network of mayors of the world’s leading cities that are united in action to confront the climate crisis. • Sustainable Healthy Cities Network for Integrated Urban Infrastructure Solutions explores infrastructure sectors such as green infrastructure and food systems through a network of scientists, policy partners and industry leaders to build better, healthier cities. 2.2 EU Projects • Urban GreenUP: is an EU-funded project which aims at developing, applying and validating a methodology for Renaturing Urban Plans to mitigate the effects of climate change, improve air quality and water management and increase the sustainability of our cities through innovative nature-based solutions. It has developed tools such as an ‘NBS Selection Tool’ designed to help local governments choose from many NBS options in their ‘NBS catalogue’ (pending approval from the Commission). 30 • Naturvation: is an EU-funded project seeking to develop an understanding of what nature-based solutions can achieve in cities, examine how innovation can be fostered in the domain of Nbs and contribute to realising the potential of Nbs for responding to urban sustainability challenges by working with community stakeholders. It has developed a tool called ‘Urban Nature Explorer’ which aims to help municipal authorities to envision, nature based solution pathways. • Upsurge: is an EU-funded project that bridges the gap between existing knowledge base on Nbs and their step-by-step practical implementation for regenerative development of cities focusing on air pollution alleviation and climate neutrality. The project develops five different demo-cases across Europe to demonstrate the varied usage of Nbs and their benefits. • Grow Green was an EU-funded project that sought to create a partnership for greener cities to increase liveability, sustainability and business opportunities. The project ended in 2022 but developed a series of resources on Nbs in cities available here that may be of relevance to you. • Network Nature: is an EU-funded project that seeks to synthesise and strengthen the NBS knowledge base, engage existing stakeholders and expand the NBS community. The project tries to ensure that NBS science informs the policy agenda and vice versa as well as seeking to accelerate the uptake of NBS. The project is coming to a close (and will be replace by NetworkNaturePlus) however, they have a series of upcoming events in June that you may be interested in. 3 Examples of good practices from other cities 3.1 Berlin, Germany • Kabisch (2015) evaluates how Berlin addressed green space planning, through three strategic documents 1) Urban Landscape Strategy, 2) Urban Development Plan for Climate, 3) Biodiversity Strategy. • Some ecosystem services are targeted (yet the term ecosystem service is rarely mentioned explicitly). The ecosystem service “habitats for species” is highly recognised and appears in often in these documents. The provision of food is also frequently addressed. The benefits of local urban food production termed urban gardening, urban farming and urban agriculture are discussed. Berlin’s strategy to promote urban biodiversity (ppt) summarises some of the biodiversity policies in this city. 3.2 Sixteen EU Cities • Smaal et al (2021) use Nancy Fraser’s three-dimensional theory of justice (economic redistribution, cultural recognition and political representation) to discuss the social justice-oriented ambitions, motivations, practices and policy trajectories of 16 European UFS (urban food strategies). • These UFSs are from: Basel [CH]; Bristol [UK]; Bruges [BE]; Cordoba [ES]; DonostiaSan Sebastián [ES]; Ede [NL]; Geneva [CH]; Ghent [BE]; Grenoble [FR]; Groningen [NL]; Montpellier [FR]; Nantes [FR]; Rennes [FR]; Tours [FR]; Uppsala [SE]; and Vitoria-Gasteiz [ES]. • In general, these cities tend to focus on “making various types of food (local, organic, fair trade, healthy, etc.) more accessible to urban citizens and on developing and sharing food-related knowledge and skills through awareness campaigns, education projects and workshops” (Smaal et al., 2021, p.722). • Importantly, these cities “seem to shy away from drawing attention to issues of intersectionality within urban food systems, and rather present policy measures as being designed and accessible ‘for all’, making sure not to step on anyone’s toes” (ibid., p.722). • What is interesting about the conclusions of these authors is that, similarly to what happens in Graz, social aspects of urban food strategies remain (or are still) implicit, fragmentary and unspecified. 31 3.3 Rotterdam, Netherlands • Cretella and Buenger (2016) studied two urban greening policy documents launched by Rotterdam: 1) the Sustainability Program, and 2) the strategic agenda Food and the City. The city used strategically the concept (and practices) around food and urban agriculture, framed as to target the needs of the low-income multicultural population, and, at the same time, of the upper and creative class. • Accordingly, “in the process of rebranding the city for middleand upper-class residents and creative workers, these strategies directly contribute to the marketing of Rotterdam” (Cretella and Buenger 2016, p.1). • This article will demonstrate that a strategy to transform the city in “creative space”, while simultaneously adopting policies to become a “sustainable city”, opened the possibility for concrete socioeconomic advantages (green jobs, more high skilled workers/migrants, etc.). 3.4 Lugo, Spain • Villarino and Garcia (2021) use the example of the city of Lugo, Spain, to demonstrate that urban agriculture provides a large variety of ecosystem services. • These authors develop a “framework that integrates scientific knowledge, professional practice and the participation of stakeholders and decision-makers to promote the design of an innovative agricultural space with demonstrative character, easily correctable, adaptable and replicable in other cities” (p.1). • Importantly, this paper also suggests some indicators to monitor ecosystem services provided by urban agriculture/gardens which might be interesting as a benchmark. Master list of questions for interviews with policy experts (Annex 2) Questions relating to EU environmental policy • From your perspective, what are the biggest EU policy priorities related to biodiversity conservation, and how do you see those policy priorities evolving over the next 5–10 years? In particular which policy areas offer the most hope for reducing biodiversity loss, and which policy areas are the biggest cause for concern? • The IPBES Transformative change assessment argues that incremental change is insufficient to halt biodiversity loss. To what extent do you feel the need for rapid and urgent action to reduce biodiversity loss is being acknowledges and acted on in EU policy? • Based on your knowledge of current and past EU policy instruments that in some way seek to address biodiversity loss, are there any that stand-out to you as having genuine transformative potential? And by transformative, I mean in the sense that they have the potential to create a genuine and significant paradigm shift whereby the loss of biodiversity is prioritised over all other economic or political interests. On PLANET4B’s research contribution • The PLANET4B project is conducting theoretical and empirical research (with case studies) to try and understand how values and behaviours and intersectionality affect biodiversity-related decision making in practice. Based on this, what do you feel the project’s most valuable offerings are for a policy audience? • When thinking about PLANET4B’s research on values, behaviours, intersectionality, systems thinking and transformative change, are there any specific EU or global policy processes or “policy entry points”, for which you feel PLANET4B’s research and findings could be most useful? • In PLANET4B we have a series of case studies who are using behaviour-change methods to shape pro-biodiversity values and behaviours in a range of localities across Europe, with local citizens. From this research, we hope to say something about how initiatives like this can be scaled-up and supported through EU policies. Drawing on 32 any experiences you’ve had in your work, do you have any insights on successful localised initiatives, can be scaled-up or supported by EU policy frameworks? EU policy and diverse values and perspectives • In the context of the European Green Deal, there is a strong emphasis on promoting social inclusion and just transition in the design, implementation and monitoring of policies – do you feel there are any specific challenges that make it difficult to ensure social inclusion in practice? What additional knowledge do you feel is needed to overcome those challenges? • PLANET4B is interested in understanding how, in the context of environmental policymaking, the EU can better embed plural values and the needs and perspectives of Europe's diverse citizens in policy processes (design, implementation). Are there any policy mechanisms or approaches that you have observed through your work, that you think are particularly effective for capturing and incorporating plural values and diverse voices and perspectives in policy design and implementation? On communicating and disseminating our research • In your view, what are some effective ways of making research more policy-relevant and actionable for EU institutions? • Our project aims to ensure that as much as possible, our research reaches the policy audiences we feel our findings are most relevant to (DG ENV, DG AGRI etc). Drawing on your years of professional experience working at the science-policy interface: what would your advice be for communicating research to policy-makers / what language, formats or channels have you found to be most effective when communicating research to policy-makers? Master list of questions for focus group discussions with business actors (Annex 3) 1. What are your experiences of trying to shape pro-sustainability behaviours within your company? 2. Have you used any particular strategies to change behaviour around biodiversity in your business? Which have these have worked? 3. For those of you who are tasked with trying to drive action on sustainability across your companies, what do you feel you need to help you achieve that? 4. In terms of behaviours, what do you feel are the challenges and barriers to taking action on nature in your company?