Reports from workshops on validated methods and pathways at EU, global and sector level. Report No D4.3 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 D4.3 Deliverable title Reports from workshops on validated methods and pathways at EU, global and sector level Task leader UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC) Corresponding author Céire Booth Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Report on online or in person workshops to discuss proposed transformative pathways and their feasibility for upscaling to the EU and global context. The workshops also serve to introduce and validate relevant methods at the EU and global contexts for enhancing the prioritisation of biodiversity in decision-making and policy processes. There are three workshops with EU policy makers/representatives and three workshops with global business/financing leaders. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 16/09/2025 Authors: Ana Lambert (UNEP-WCMC); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC); Noor Noor (UNEP-WCMC); Thiago Uehara (UNEP-WCMC); Fabiana Spinelli (UNEP-WCMC) 0.2 Draft 20/10/2025 Reviewers: Agnes Zolyomi (MLU); Blanka Loučková (CG) 0.3 Draft 26/10/2025 Authors: Ana Lambert (UNEP-WCMC); Céire Booth (UNEP-WCMC) 1.0 Final 30/10/2025 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) 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 Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable David N. Barton (NINA); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Rafal P. Chudy (NINA); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Borbala Lipka (ESSRG); Vinícius Mendes (RU); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Matteo Villa (UNIPI); Agnes Zolyomi (MLU) Recommended citation Lambert, A., Booth, C., Uehara, T., Noor, N., & Spinelli, F. (2025). Reports from workshops on validated methods and pathways at EU, global and sector level. Report No D4.3 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17251078 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 case study partners for their time, support and expertise that was instrumental to the delivery of these workshops. The authors would also like to thank the participants of the validation workshops for generously sharing their knowledge and perspectives willingness and contributing to the rich discussions. Finally, the authors would like to thank the reviewers for their time and thoughtful feedback throughout the drafting process. v List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition BIOTraCes Biodiversity and Transformative Change for plural and nature positive societies. CAP Common Agricultural Policy CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CU Coventry University DAISY DigitAl, technologIcal and Social innovation mixes enabling transformation for biodiversity and equitY ESG Environmental, Social, and Governance ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group EU European Union EUBP European Biodiversity Partnership GDPR General Data Protection Regulation IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPLCs Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities ITPGRFA International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture KM-GBF Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework LCA Life Cycle Assessment MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NBSAPs National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research PEF Product Environmental Footprint PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RTD Research and Innovation Directorate-General RTRS Standard for Responsible Soy Production RU Radboud University SME Small and Medium-sized Enterprises TC4B The Transformative Change for Biodiversity and Equity vi TIESS Transdisciplinary Institute for Environmental and Social Studies ToC Theory of Change UFZ Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research UNDROP United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Peasants and Other People Working in Rural Areas UNEP-WCMC UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre UNIPI University of Pisa 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ..................................................................................... iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................. iv List of abbreviations and acronyms ......................................................................... v Executive summary ................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ............................................................................................................. 3 2. How Task 4.3 builds on other PLANET4B Tasks and Work Packages ............. 4 2.1 Building on earlier PLANET4B WPs and Tasks to validate transformative pathways and policy recommendations ............................................................................................ 5 2.2 Building on earlier PLANET4B WPs and Tasks to validate the policy relevance of PLANET4B’s transformative methods ............................................................................. 6 3. Methodological approach to planning and conducting the six validation workshops .................................................................................................................. 7 3.1 Preparatory work in the lead-up to the workshops ................................................... 9 3.2 Data collection and analysis ..................................................................................... 10 4. Summary of six validation workshops on transformative methods and pathways ................................................................................................................... 11 4.1 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for the trade sector ................ 11 4.2 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for agrobiodiversity and seed networks ............................................................................................................................ 15 4.3 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for the finance sector ............ 19 4.4 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for the textile industry ........... 22 4.5 Validation workshop on transformative methods with Transformative Change Cluster projects ................................................................................................................ 26 4.6 Validation workshop on transformative methods and transformative pathways at the PLANET4B final consortium meeting ...................................................................... 29 5 Reflecting on lessons learned and challenges in Task 4.3 ............................... 33 6 Conclusion and outlook ....................................................................................... 34 References ................................................................................................................ 36 Statement on data availability ................................................................................. 37 Statement on ethics ................................................................................................. 37 2 Executive summary • Six validation workshops were hosted between June 2025 – October 2025 with representatives from policy, business, research and civil society to discuss and validate PLANET4B’s transformative methods and pathways for prioritising biodiversity in decision-making across EU, global, and sectoral contexts. • Four of the validation workshops focused on validating PLANET4B’s sectorspecific transformative pathways and policy recommendations, with the aim of improving their clarity, feasibility, and policy alignment. • Two of the validation workshops focused on validating PLANET4B’s core research themes on values and behaviour, intersectionality, and transformative change, and the enabling conditions needed to improve the prioritisation of biodiversity in decision-making. • Each validation workshop culminated in a rich collection of comments and feedback that will help to improve the clarity, accuracy and policy alignment of each D4.4 knowledge product. The outcomes of Task 4.3 will directly inform the final knowledge products under D4.4. • Lessons learned from Task 4.3 included the challenge of ensuring adequate representation from policy and business actors whose time and input to the project was voluntary, managing quality discussion and engagement across hybrid and online formats and the importance on reflecting how well the objectives were achieved after each workshop in order to improve subsequent workshops. The lessons learned may offer valuable insights for future cocreation processes. • Involving actors from policy, business, research and civil society in the validation of PLANET4B’s findings will likely enhance the legitimacy, policy relevance, and usability of PLANET4B research recommendations. 3 1 Introduction Policymakers and business actors are key agents of change in addressing biodiversity loss because they shape the systems that govern how societies and economies interact with nature. Policy instruments determine the rules, incentives and governance structures that influence how biodiversity is managed, used, valued and perceived (IPBES, n.d.). At the same time, our economies are fundamentally dependent on biodiversity because of the provisioning, regulating, cultural and supporting services it provides (OECD, 2025; IPBES, 2024). For example, businesses commonly operate through complex global supply chains that drive land and resource use, often resulting in significant impacts on ecosystems (Salmi et al., 2023). However, the business sector can also play an important role in driving positive change by adopting and championing sustainable practices and behaviours (World Economic Forum, 2024). Research also has a key role to play in unlocking ideas and solutions for how to transform and adapt our societies so that nature and society can thrive. However, there has often been a disconnect between research, policy and practice. For example, the goals, timeframes and theoretical approaches that characterise many research processes are often at odds with the need for simple and immediate solutions that can be easily taken up in policy and practice (Dwivedi et al., 2024). This is particularly true in the case of transdisciplinary research that explores complex concepts like systems change and transformations science because it often involves multiple interacting variables, context-dependent outcomes, and inherent uncertainties. As highlighted in the IPBES values assessment, this uncertainty and complexity can hinder uptake of research results in policy decision-making, which often favour clear and quantifiable results (IPBES, 2022). It is increasingly acknowledged that in order for research to have greater relevance and legitimacy in the eyes of policy and practice, research must adapt its approach from simply “disseminating” research findings, to involving societal actors in the co-creation of research results. Whilst co-creation is not without its challenges (Dwivedi et al., 2024), engaging actors from policy and practice in the cocreation of research can increase the likelihood that the research results will be taken up by those actors. In this way, co-creation can open up the possibility for research to have greater real-word impact. PLANET4B recognises the critical role of policy and business actors as agents of change in reducing biodiversity loss and the importance of using collaborative methods to jointly identify solutions for reducing biodiversity loss. In this regard, the role of Task 4.3 was to host six workshops with representatives from research, policy and business to discuss, develop and validate a series of transformative pathways and transformative methods for improving the prioritisation of biodiversity in a range of policy and business decision-making contexts. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of these six validation workshops. The report begins by explaining how Task 4.3 builds on other Tasks and Work Packages (WPs) in the PLANET4B project in Section 2, followed by the methodological approach in Section 3. Section 4 provides detailed summaries of each of the six validation workshops. Section 5 reflects on the main challenges and lessons learned during the implementation of Task 4.3. Section 6 provides concluding remarks. 10 composition was designed to ensure that feedback reflected multiple viewpoints and that recommendations would be robust across different implementation contexts. Geographic diversity was also considered, particularly for workshops addressing global systems such as textiles, trade and finance, to incorporate perspectives from both producer and consumer regions. Participant selection was jointly planned with partners to ensure the right mix of external experts whose insights could complement and validate the project team's research findings. On UNEP-WCMC's side, recommendations for participants were sought from internal colleagues at UNEP-WCMC who worked more directly with actors working in the trade, agriculture, textile and finance sectors. For the workshops which aimed to validate the transformative pathways for the trade, finance, agriculture and textile industries, participants were also selected from the extensive case studies’ advisory groups, given the benefit of having input from experts who were already familiar with the case studies’ research. 3.2 Data collection and analysis The contributions made by participants during the workshop were captured using multiple tools depending on what was most suitable for the format of the workshop. For online workshops, digital collaboration tools (Miro boards and shared Google documents) enabled real-time documentation of participant contributions, which were systematically organised according to themes or recommendations. For hybrid workshops, both physical flip charts/post-it notes and digital tools were used to ensure all voices were captured regardless of the mode of participation. For all workshops, UNEP-WCMC arranged dedicated note-takers to record the discussion in real time. Following each workshop, UNEP-WCMC collated all the data provided by participants during the workshop. The data was then analysed to identify areas of consensus and divergence and prioritise comments according to their relevance for informing and improving the various knowledge products in D4.4. This data was analysed in relation to existing research and case study data from PLANET4B to ensure that any changes to the D4.4 knowledge products did not compromise the key findings and messages from PLANET4B. In this way, the D4.4 knowledge products could be grounded in both PLANET4B’s research evidence and practical expert validation. Figure 3. Validation workshop data collection and analysis process. 11 4. Summary of six validation workshops on transformative methods and pathways The following section provides further detail on the each of the six workshops conducted under Task 4.3. For each workshop, the summary includes: the overall purpose and specific objectives, a description of participants and rationale for their selection, detailed agenda description, supporting materials used during the workshop and key, outcomes, and next steps outlining how the workshop feedback was integrated back into the final D4.4 knowledge products. 4.1 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for the trade sector Workshop description This PLANET4B validation workshop convened experts to refine the policy brief focused on EU–Brazil agricultural trade aiming to transform agricultural trade systems to deliver more just and sustainable outcomes. The workshop was designed in a hybrid format to enable broad participation from experts across different geographical locations and sectors, including those who could not travel to Cambridge to attend the workshop in-person. This format was chosen to maximise engagement from international perspectives, particularly from the Global South, which is essential for validating work on global trade systems. The workshop structure combined presentations, “flash reflections” from participants, and group discussions to ensure diverse inputs informed the refinement of the “policy challenges” and “policy options” in the trade-specific policy brief. Objective(s) of the workshop: • Validate and refine the transformative pathway and “policy options” for the trade sector developed as part of D4.4. • Explore leverage points for reframing trade policy for more positive justice, equity, and biodiversity outcomes. • Share next steps for developing the trade-specific policy brief and plans for dissemination. Workshop participants The hybrid workshop took place on 2 July 2025 and was co-organised by UNEPWCMC and Radboud University. It convened 25 participants representing diverse expertise and geographical contexts, essential for validating the global trade pathways developed by Radboud University as part of their case study based on 2 – 3 years of research. Participants included academics specialising in trade policy and sustainable development, policy experts from European and international research institutions, civil society representatives from environmental and development organisations, practitioners from consulting firms focused on sustainability, and UNEP-WCMC staff working on the trade-biodiversity nexus. The group encompassed perspectives from the EU, Brazil, India, and other regions, ensuring that discussions reflected both producer and consumer country viewpoints on agricultural trade transformation. Description of the agenda The 3-hour hybrid workshop was designed to facilitate discussion, validation and knowledge co-development across in-person and online participants (see Table 3). 12 UNEP-WCMC chaired the workshop and facilitated the breakout group discussions. Radboud University presented the transformative pathway for the trade sector and the associated “policy recommendations”. Both UNEP-WCMC and Radboud University actively participated in the workshop discussions. Table 3. Agenda for the validation workshop focused on the transformative pathways and policy options for the trade sector. Session Duration Description Opening and Context 35 min • Introduction to PLANET4B and the purpose of the workshop • Presentation from Radboud University on the transformative pathway for the trade sector • Presentation from researcher at UNEP-WCMC on “pathways for just and sustainable trade” • Participant introductions Initial Reflections 30 min Brief inputs from participants across sectors and geographies Breakout Discussions 80 min Group 1: Reviewing the list of “policy options” for accuracy, credibility and policy relevance Group 2: Reviewing leverage points and addressing gaps Reconvening and Closing 60 min • Reporting back on group discussions in plenary • Presenting next steps following the workshop Opening and context To set the scene for the workshop participants, UNEP-WCMC presented a brief introduction to the PLANET4B project followed by the purpose, objectives and expected outcomes and agenda for the workshop. Following this opening presentation, all workshop participants were invited to briefly introduce themselves. The case study team at Radboud University then delivered a presentation on the transformative pathway and “policy options” for the trade sector, drawing on their case study research and the results of D4.2. Next, a researcher at UNEP-WCMC shared the findings from a similar research project they had conducted on “pathways for just and sustainable trade”, to highlight synergies with the transformative pathways and “policy options” in D4.2 and D4.4. To help set the scene for the workshop participants, both presenters were asked to address three guiding questions: What is the problem statement that the findings try to address? What actions or leverage points does your work identify? What policy recommendations emerge, and who are the primary audiences? A short Q&A session followed to ensure all participants understood the scope and content of both outputs. Flash reflections Participants were then invited to share 3-minute “flash reflections” to spark dialogue and surface initial reactions before the structured group discussions. This segment was designed to capture diverse viewpoints across disciplines, sectors, and geographies, ensuring that practical experience, policy expertise, and academic analysis informed the workshop discussions. Inviting “flash reflections” from participants early in the workshop proved to be an effective way of inspiring engagement ahead of the group 13 discussions and eliciting diverse perspectives from the workshop participants. The flash reflections also helped to reveal areas of resonance and divergence that would be further explored in the group discussions. Breakout group discussions The main event of the workshop was the expert group discussions. The breakout group discussions consisted of two parallel discussion groups, each addressing different aspects of the transformative pathway and "policy options": • Group 1: Focus on actors and actions. This group focused on validating the actions needed to transform trade systems to achieve more just and biodiverse outcomes. In particular, the discussion focused on refining the key actors responsible for these actions and exploring at which scales of governance these actions are most relevant. • Group 2: Focus on intent, goals, and paradigms. Taking inspiration from the Donella Meadows’ leverage points framework (Meadows, 1999), this group focused on validating the transformative pathway by discussing whether additional “deeper” systems changes are needed to unlock transformative change. Discussion focused in particular on reviewing whether any additional actions are needed to shift the goals or priorities of trade systems; change dominant mindsets or worldviews shaping trade (e.g. growth-first, extractivism, commoditisation); and change forms of power or agency to challenge and transcend dominant paradigms. Participants had the opportunity to switch groups halfway through the allotted time, to encourage cross-pollination of ideas. The discussion facilitators took care to ensure participation from both online and in-person attendees, managing the hybrid format to create an inclusive space for all voices. Reconvening and closing Following the group discussions, participants returned to plenary and a rapporteur from each group summarised the key discussion points from their group discussion. The plenary discussion helped to identify areas of convergence and divergence. The session concluded with a presentation of the emerging structure for revised outputs, an invitation to join the authoring and review team, and discussion of next steps. Supporting materials The transformative pathway in D4.2 and the draft "policy options” were emailed to the workshop participants as pre-reading prior to the workshop. This literature also served as the basis for discussion, validation and refinement during the workshop. During the workshop, both groups used live, open Google documents for live collaborative brainstorming, with dedicated rapporteurs synthesising insights in real time. Outcomes of the workshop discussion This section provides an overall summary of the key discussion points that emerged from the workshop, based on the inputs from workshop participants: 1. Concrete actions and actor roles must be better defined and diversified 14 • Group 1 noted the importance of addressing inclusion gaps, particularly the underrepresentation of Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) and smallholder voices. There was strong support for mechanisms to facilitate their participation in international fora and national-level decision making. Examples included mentorship initiatives, knowledge-sharing platforms, and tailored financing tools. • Participants called for clearer and more ambitious regulatory expectations from governments (especially the EU), including due diligence and living wage standards. They noted that global initiatives such as the Accountability Framework Initiative (AFI) and the certification standard for Responsible Soy Production (RTRS), and others, need to be embedded in broader strategies. • They also flagged the dangers of homogenising actor categories, encouraging more precise targeting across finance, corporations, and government levels. There was recognition that consumers, investors, and coalitions each have specific roles in shifting behaviours and enabling change. 2. Deep leverage points are under-addressed in current trade policy • Group 2 highlighted the persistence of outdated trade goals prioritising growth and scale over sustainability. Participants urged moving away from extractivism and commoditisation. Instead, they advocated for localised, context-sensitive approaches grounded in solidarity, food sovereignty, and rights-based values. • A dominant concern was the disconnection between financial actors, investors, and the real impacts of production. This distancing weakens accountability and contributes to inertia. Participants expressed scepticism about current traceability mechanisms, arguing that they are often superficial, opaque, or skewed toward corporate interests. Narrative shifts were seen as critical. There is a need to move beyond critique to articulate what a better system looks like, including who benefits and why. This should include a stronger focus on nonanthropocentric values and recognition of more-than-human rights. 3. Stronger narratives and framing are essential for policy impact • Participants called for more strategic communication to engage policymakers, consumers, and financial actors. Effective messaging must connect biodiversity and equity goals with urgent policy priorities such as food security and risk mitigation. The workshop surfaced demand for a ‘reboot’ of trade discussions. • Participants proposed that UNEP-WCMC could provide leadership by reframing biodiversity as integral to sustainable trade, drawing on PLANET4B’s work. Doing so could help unify fragmented agendas across environment, agriculture, human rights, and finance. Next steps The outcomes of the workshop discussion will directly inform revisions to the draft D4.4 policy brief for the trade sector. In particular, the comments and inputs received from workshop participants will be used to refine the wording of the "policy options" to improve their policy relevance, accuracy and credibility. The refined “policy options” will be improved on account of the inputs contributed by the workshop participants, 15 whose knowledge and perspectives represent diverse geographies, backgrounds and institutional knowledge. 4.2 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for agrobiodiversity and seed networks Workshop description This validation workshop aimed to validate and refine the draft D4.4 policy brief on agrobiodiversity and seed networks. The policy brief builds on the transformative pathways in D4.2 but goes one step further to translate the transformative pathways into associated “policy challenges” and “policy options” for unlocking the pathways of change. The workshop specifically sought to validate what actions can be taken at the EU and global policy level (which are referred to in D4.4 as “policy options”) to better enable community seed networks and grassroots initiatives to improve agricultural resilience, conserve biodiversity, and scale up climate adaptation. The workshop was designed in an interactive online format to facilitate broad expert participation across geographical locations and sectors. The format combined structured discussions with open group exchanges to encourage knowledge-exchange and free-flow of discussion whilst also keeping things on track for achieving the workshop objectives. A "flash reflections" session was included towards the beginning of the workshop to surface initial reactions and diverse perspectives before moving into detailed analysis, creating space for participants to express immediate thoughts and reflections that might otherwise be overlooked in more structured discussion. Breakout groups were then used to enable in-depth examination of each recommendation, with groups intentionally composed to include a mix of academics, policymakers, and practitioners. This diversity was designed to ensure that feedback reflected multiple viewpoints and that recommendations would be robust across different implementation contexts. The Miro board was selected as a supporting tool to provide transparent, structured discussion whilst also capturing input in a way that could be easily analysed following the workshop. Objective(s) of the workshop: • Validate and refine the draft recommendations with emphasis on feasibility and accuracy • Clarify scope, key terms, and distinctions between specific policies and agreements • Strengthen the messaging to improve policy alignment and coherence across EU and international frameworks and clarify the primary target audiences for the brief • Share next steps for further developing the policy brief and plans for dissemination Workshop participants The workshop targeted experts with specialised knowledge in agrobiodiversity conservation, EU agricultural policy, seed legislation, and grassroots seed systems. Invitations were extended to individuals who could contribute diverse perspectives spanning policy development, academic research, and practical implementation. A total of 11 participants joined the workshop, including representatives from Non- 16 Governmental Organisations (NGOs) working on seed policy at EU level, research institutes focused on agrobiodiversity, international policy advisors, national government officials from EU Member States, advocacy organisations, and UNEPWCMC internal experts with research and policy expertise. This composition was intentionally designed to ensure validation feedback reflected the perspectives of those who would ultimately use, implement, or be affected by the policy recommendations. Description of the agenda The workshop was designed as an interactive 2.5-hour online session divided into three main sections to maximise both structured discussion and open exchange. Table 4. Agenda for workshop focused on validating transformative pathways and “policy options” relating to agrobiodiversity and seed networks. Session Duration Description Opening and Setting Context 30 min Introduction to PLANET4B and workshop objectives, presentation of draft policy brief's key findings and six recommendations, followed by a “flash reflections” session where participants shared brief reflections on the recommendations Breakout Group Discussions 90 min Facilitated small-group discussions systematically reviewing the six recommendations using structured guiding questions to assess clarity, relevance, feasibility, gaps, policy alignment, and actionability. Miro board used for real-time collaborative feedback Reconvening and Closing 30 min Plenary session to report back on the main discussion points in each group, identify which "policy options" should take priority, discuss primary target audiences for the policy brief, and outline next steps Opening and context At the opening of the workshop, UNEP-WCMC presented a brief introduction to the PLANET4B project and outlined the purpose, objectives and expected outcomes of the workshop. After a round of brief introductions from each of the workshop participants, ESSRG presented the results of their case study research, the transformative pathways in D4.2, and the draft “policy options” from the draft D4.4 policy brief on agrobiodiversity and seed systems. These opening presentations provided essential scene-setting for the group discussion later in the workshop. Following the opening presentations, all participants were invited to provide "flash reflections" (maximum 3 minutes each) on the case studies’ research and the messages in the draft D4.4 policy brief. When giving their “flash reflections” participants were also asked to state their positionality (practitioner, academic, policymaker, EU/national government). This segment of the workshop was designed to capture immediate reactions and surface feedback before the structured group discussion began, ensuring that instinctive responses and potential blind spots were identified early in the discussion. Breakout group discussions The core of the workshop consisted of facilitated small-group discussions where participants worked systematically through the six recommendations captured in the D4.4 policy brief on agrobiodiversity and seed systems. The two groups were intentionally composed to include a variety of stakeholders (academics, policymakers, 17 and practitioners) so that diverse perspectives could inform the validation process. UNEP-WCMC facilitated the group discussion process to help manage time, keep the discussion on track and encourage participation by creating an inclusive space for diverse viewpoints. Rapporteurs captured key discussion points in preparation for reporting back in plenary. Groups used guiding questions in the Miro template to assess the clarity, relevance, feasibility, gaps, policy alignment, and actionability of each “policy challenge” and “policy recommendation”. The Miro board served as a visual and collaborative tool to organise feedback systematically, allowing participants to see evolving ideas and build on each other's inputs in real time. Reconvening and closing After the small group discussions, participants reconvened in plenary to compare the key points discussed in their group, identify whether there were any gaps in the list of “policy options”, and validate which target audience are most suitable for the policy brief. In the closing session, UNEP-WCMC outlined next steps for incorporating feedback into the revised policy brief. Supporting materials Two key materials were used to structure the discussion and capture feedback. The draft D4.4 policy brief was emailed to the workshop participants as pre-workshop reading. The "policy challenges” and “policy options” contained in the brief then formed the basis of the discussion during the breakout groups. The Miro board (see Figure 4) was used in the workshop to systematically capture participant feedback on all six findings and recommendations in the policy brief. For each "policy challenge” and "policy option”, guiding questions prompted participants to assess clarity (is it clearly articulated?), feasibility (is it realistic and implementable?), policy alignment (does it align with existing or emerging frameworks?), and gaps (what is missing?). Participants provided feedback in real-time, enabling the group to build on each other's input and identify areas of agreement and divergence. This systematic approach ensured comprehensive expert validation of each "policy challenge” and “policy option”, which was key to achieving the objective of the workshop and subsequent work to improve and refine the draft policy brief. 18 Figure 4. Miro board format. Outcomes of the workshop discussion The workshop generated substantial feedback for improving the draft policy brief. There was broad agreement on the list of “policy challenges” and “policy options” in the draft policy brief, although participants raised new insights and nuance to strengthen the messages. The following summary reflects the key points raised by participants during the workshop in relation to the six "policy challenges” and “policy recommendations”: 1. The need to prioritise exemptions for non-commercial seed exchange • Participants emphasised the importance of exemptions rather than simplifying registration processes for non-commercial seed exchange and small-quantity sales, as simplified processes still impose significant administrative burdens. Participants also highlighted that a stronger distinction should be made between exchange for conservation purposes and sale for commercial purposes, with conservation exchange ideally sitting outside marketing rules entirely. 2. The importance of ensuring the participation of grassroots seed custodians in governance • Recognition of grassroots actors must extend beyond seed access to meaningful participation in governance structures, aligning with the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (ITPGRFA) and UN Declaration on the Rights of Peasants (UNDROP) principles. This positions farmers and community networks as agents of change rather than passive beneficiaries, encompassing all actors engaged in on-farm conservation. 3. The need to strengthen existing knowledge hubs and networks • Participants stressed the importance of supporting and strengthening existing knowledge hubs and seed networks rather than creating new platforms. The focus should be on resourcing what works, facilitating reciprocal knowledge exchange, and linking traditional knowledge with formal education systems. 4. The need to embed genuine co-creation in research funding 19 • Research funding, particularly through Horizon Europe, should require genuine co-creation where farmers and informal sector actors are involved in planning, priority-setting, and evaluation with fair compensation for their contributions. 5. The need for dedicated Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) funding for on-farm conservation • Dedicated CAP funding schemes are needed for on-farm conservation, participatory breeding, and seed exchanges. Tying funding to measurable outcome targets for on-farm genetic diversity would provide accountability, with agrobiodiversity explicitly framed as strategic for the EU's climate, food, and biodiversity goals. Next steps Following the validation workshop, UNEP-WCMC conducted a detailed analysis of the contributions received during the breakout group discussions. This feedback was reviewed against the case studies’ pre-existing research and analysis based on case study materials from D4.2. The revised recommendations will be incorporated into the final D4.4 deliverable, strengthening its actionability, policy relevance, and potential for real-world impact in shaping EU agricultural policy to better support successful agroecological practices and climate-resilient food systems. 4.3 Validation workshop on transformative pathways for the finance sector Workshop description This validation workshop, held on 25 September 2025, aimed to validate and refine the draft D4.4 policy brief entitled “Sustainable Finance and Cognitive Biases: Theory of Change for Aligning Investment Behaviour with Environmental Sustainability Objectives.” The policy brief was developed by UNEP-WCMC as part of D4.4, building on the case study research undertaken by the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) and the transformative pathways developed collaboratively with CzechGlobe in D4.2. The core component of the policy brief is a Theory of Change (ToC) which illustrates a logical progression for addressing cognitive bias in the finance sector by linking desired impacts with relevant activities, outputs and outcomes. The purpose of this workshop was to validate the draft ToC with expert participants, to the aim to improve its relevance, accuracy and credibility in the final draft of the policy brief. The workshop was designed in an interactive online format to facilitate expert discussion across the financial sector, research community, and policy sphere. It convened 5 participants, with the small number being deliberate given the complex ToC framework, which necessitated deeper engagement with fewer participants. The session structure was organised in a format that was most conducive for systematically reviewing the different elements of the ToC (impacts, long-term and intermediate outcomes, outputs, and activities), with the main of ensuring the causal logic was clear, credible, and actionable. UNEP-WCMC chaired the workshop and facilitated the breakout group discussions. Both UNEP-WCMC and NINA participated actively in the workshop discussions. 26 4.5 Validation workshop on transformative methods with Transformative Change Cluster projects Workshop description This joint PLANET4B-DAISY validation workshop, entitled "Turning on Transformation: Compiling Joint Policy Messages," was organised by UNEP-WCMC, Martin Luther University (MLU) and Coventry University (CU) on 29 July 2025. The purpose of this workshop was to validate PLANET4B’s research findings and to identify synergies between the findings and messages of the Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects to help inform the messages in the D4.4 knowledge product focused on “synthesising the applicability of behaviour change and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity into EU and global policy processes”. The workshop was structured to encourage expert reflection from Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects about their project's findings on values and behaviours, intersectionality and social inclusion and transformational change. The discussion also focused on sharing insights on what projects had uncovered about the “enabling conditions” needed to improve the prioritisation of biodiversity in decisionmaking. Given that the Transformative Change Cluster projects are researching transformative change for biodiversity through a range of different lenses, UNEPWCMC felt that the best framework for discussing and validating connections between our research findings was by discussing them in relation to the “five complementary strategies to bring about transformative change” identified in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment (IPBES, 2024b: 35). Objective(s) of the workshop: • To map findings from the Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects against IPBES’ five complimentary strategies for bringing about transformative change to help validate the research messages in D4.4 and strengthen synergies across project results • To discuss potential policy entry points for disseminating findings from PLANET4B and other Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects Workshop participants The workshop brought together seven projects from the Horizon Europe Transformative Change cluster, including representatives from PLANET4B, DAISY, BioAgora, BIONEXT, Mosaic, TC4BE, Transformative Pathways, BIOTRaCeS, CircHive. The workshop was jointly organised and facilitated by UNEP-WCMC, Martin Luther University, and Coventry University (by PLANET4B and DAISY). Description of the agenda The 90-minute online workshop was structured in three parts to maximise knowledge exchange, group reflection and discussion. 27 Table 7. Agenda for validation workshop with Transformative Change Cluster projects. Session Duration Description Opening and SceneSetting 30 min Presentations from DAISY and PLANET4B on methods for translating research on transformative change into policy-relevant findings and messages. Strategic Discussion 50 min Facilitated discussion to exchange knowledge and findings across projects, explore synergies between findings, and identify options for amplifying joint messages for policy. Closing Remarks 10 min Summary of the main discussion outcomes. Opening and scene-setting The session opened with two presentations designed to illustrate different approaches for translating transformative change research findings into policy messages within the cluster. First, researchers at the Helmholtz-Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) involved in the DAISY project presented their methodology for assessing policy innovation through a transformative lens. Next, UNEP-WCMC presented their own methodology for analysing the results of PLANET4B’s case studies to identify the “enabling conditions” that were key to transformational change in the case study learning communities and how these enabling conditions were then translated into clear and targeted actions that could be taken at an EU policy level to create the necessary enabling conditions to unlock transformative change for biodiversity. This was followed by an open exchange where workshop participants were free to ask questions or highlight similar insights from their own projects. Facilitated group discussion The facilitated group discussion was focused on discussing and validating findings across the Transformative Change Cluster projects in relation to the five complimentary strategies for bringing about transformative change. The five complimentary strategies for bringing about transformative change consist of: 1. Conserve and regenerate places of value to nature and people 2. Drive systemic change in the sectors most responsible for biodiversity loss and nature’s decline 3. Transform economic systems for people and nature 4. Transform governance systems to be integrative, inclusive, accountable and adaptive 5. Shift societal views and values to recognise human-nature interconnectedness The rationale for using this framework is, firstly, because the five complimentary strategies for bringing about transformative change link well to the research topics across the Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects, providing a common framework for discussion and comparison whilst leaving room for the individuality of each project. Secondly, given that IPBES assessments are designed to provide policy-relevant information to support informed decision-making, discussing the findings across the respective Transformative Change Cluster projects in relation to the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment ensured that our discussions could 28 build on the policy-relevant findings in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment. During the facilitated discussion, participants were given direct access to the Miro board to add their inputs. There was also a dedicated note-taker recording participants’ spoken inputs. Closing remarks The session concluded with a summary of the main insights and messages that emerged during the facilitated discussion and next steps for developing PLANET4B’s D4.4 knowledge product focused on synthesising behaviour change and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity in EU and global processes. Supporting materials For supporting materials, IPBES’ five complementary strategies for bringing about transformative change were mapped onto a Miro board, with corresponding text boxes to record participants’ inputs on how their project findings aligned with specific strategies and sub-strategies. Outcomes of the workshop The workshop generated interesting insights on the synergies across Cluster projects relating to values and behaviour, intersectionality and social inclusion and transformation change. The following points summarise participants inputs during the group discussion. 1. Strategic entry points require multi-level engagement • Discussion revealed important considerations for maximising policy influence through targeted engagement. Rather than focusing solely on EU-level actors, participants suggested that national-level representatives, particularly those from Member States who participate in Council negotiations, could serve as strategic audiences for the messages. For projects with local-level empirical work, such as PLANET4B's case studies, connecting findings to national representatives may provide more direct pathways for influence by demonstrating how local transformative change evidence can inform national policy positions. The European Biodiversity Partnership (EUBP) and BioAgora platform were suggested as additional entry points for dissemination and engagement of the policy note. 2. The need to ensure that the narrative and framing of our messages emphasises risk over trade-offs • A critical insight concerned the importance of framing transformative change in relation to risk rather than trade-offs. Participants emphasised that our messages should challenge the false dichotomy between nature and economy by demonstrating that failing to invest in transformative change research represents a greater risk to both biodiversity and economic stability. This framing, particularly in the context of current EU priorities around competitiveness, may resonate more effectively with policymakers concerned about economic resilience. The workshop highlighted the need to address emerging narratives around competitiveness, simplification, and innovation, exploring what these mean for biodiversity and how transformative change research can 29 contribute to policy priorities such as those from the Multi-annual Financial Framework. 3. IPBES strategies provide an effective framework for comparing results across Transformative Change for Biodiversity Cluster projects • The mapping exercise using the five transformative change strategies identified in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment proved valuable for organising PLANET4B's findings in ways that connect to established knowledge on transformative change. Participants identified synergies across Cluster projects and recognised opportunities to build on each other's evidence. Next steps The insights and messages gathered during this workshop informed the subsequent validation workshop held during PLANET4B's final consortium meeting (10–11 September 2025), during which internal partners validated and an expert panel provided a reflective discussion on PLANET4B’s key messages on values and behaviour, intersectionality and transformational change. 4.6 Validation workshop on transformative methods and transformative pathways at the PLANET4B final consortium meeting Workshop description At the PLANET4B final consortium meeting (9–11 September 2025), a two-part process was carried out to internally and externally validate and reflect on PLANET4B’s key messages on values and behaviour, intersectionality and transformational change. An in-person format was chosen for this workshop, taking advantage of the occasion of the annual consortium meeting to get participants together in person to engage in quality discussion and reflection. The first aspect of the workshop was an internal World Café session with 35 PLANET4B project partners. The purpose of the World Café activity was to discuss, validate, refine and expand on the pre-identified messages across three thematic tables, identifying both points of consensus and areas for improvement in communicating PLANET4B's research findings. The following day, an expert panel brought together four experts whose knowledge spanned across research and policy. Panellists included a representative from the European Commission, an author in the IPBES Transformative Change Assessment, an expert involved in multiple Transformative Change Cluster projects and a behavioural science expert. Questions for the panel were shaped using PLANET4B's validated research messages from the World Café. Discussions focused on making transformative change practical and scalable, addressing systemic barriers to transformation change, and strengthening procedural justice and inclusion in biodiversity governance. Together, these activities provided critical feedback to refine PLANET4B's final key messages, validated their relevance across scales, and generated actionable insights for the D4.4’s knowledge products focused on “Synthesising the applicability of behaviour change and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity in decision-making". 30 Objective(s) of the workshop: • Validate and refine PLANET4B’s key messages on intersectionality, behaviour and values, and transformative change with PLANET4B partners building on prior analysis of the intensive case studies’ results • Engage external experts to discuss and connect the findings to EU and global policy frameworks and explore implementation pathways. Workshop participants The workshop brought together people who could validate and contextualise PLANET4B’s findings across contexts. • World Café (10 September 2025): Around 43 PLANET4B partners from all work packages and case studies. • Expert panel (11 September 2025): Four invited experts from academia, the European Commission, and international research networks. PLANET4B partners, external stakeholders, and online participants took part in an open discussion following the panellists’ interventions. Their participation helped validate the research messages and connect them to action. Description of the agenda The validation process consisted of two complementary sessions held over two days during PLANET4B's final consortium meeting. Table 8. World Café and Expert Panel Agendas. Session Duration Description World Café (Day 1) 45 min Participants rotated through three themed tables (values and behaviour, intersectionality, transformational change) in 15-minute rounds, providing feedback on pre-drafted key messages. Each table had a facilitator and a note-taker. Expert Panel (Day 2) 60 min Four-person hybrid panel discussing how to make transformative change practical and implementable, with guiding questions and open discussion with the audience. World Café structure A World Café format was chosen because of its effectiveness for encouraging active listening, reflection on others' ideas, and deep engagement with group discussion, enabling partners to share perspectives based on their unique experiences in the project. During the World Café, participants rotated through three themed tables in 15minute rounds. The topics on each table related to the core themes addressed in the PLANET4B project: • Table 1: Values and behaviour • Table 2: Intersectionality • Table 3: Transformational change Each table had a dedicated facilitator and note-taker. Participants reviewed the predrafted key messages, which were drafted by the UNEP-WCMC team through a 31 thematic analysis of different WP deliverables. The participants provided feedback via oral discussion and post-it notes to refine, agree, disagree, modify, and add to the research messages. They were encouraged to link their reflections to specific case study examples where applicable. In each round of discussion, the points raised by the previous group were shared with the new table participants to encourage reflection whilst also leaving space for new discussion points to emerge. Expert panel structure This 60-minute hybrid event featured two in-person panellists and two remote panellists, with discussion guided by a UNEP-WCMC chair (in person). Following the World Café, UNEP-WCMC collated the key messages identified during the discussion and formulated questions for the panellists based on those messages. Following brief biographical introductions, each panellist responded to the question: "How can we make the concept of transformational change feel more practical and possible to implement for the benefit of biodiversity and people?" The remaining guiding questions addressed: scaling local results, promising research areas and future directions, overcoming short-term thinking, and positioning biodiversity messages within competitive policy environments. Discussion then opened to panel cross-commentary, followed by 15 minutes of open questions from in-person and online participants. Supporting materials Prior to the World Café exercise, UNEP-WCMC gathered all existing project materials offering insights about the results of the intensive case studies relating to values and behaviours, intersectionality and transformational change. UNEP-WCMC then conducted further thematic analysis of the materials to extract main findings and research messages relating to values and behaviour, intersectionality and transformational change. This analysis mostly drew on the results of workshops that MLU had conducted with each of the case studies previously to better understand their transformative interventions, the impacts of their interventions and the important enabling conditions that were key to the success of the transformative interventions. Using the results of the thematic analysis, a series of key messages were drafted for each of the three discussion themes: values and behaviour, intersectionality and transformative change. During the World Café session, the pre-drafted key messages on intersectionality, behaviour and values, and transformative change were provided on each table to support the discussion. Facilitators guided the discussions while dedicated note-takers captured feedback on worksheets in real-time. Where possible, participants were encouraged to link their reflections and messages with concrete examples from their research or case studies. In each rotation, the points raised by the previous group were shared with new participants to build on the existing discussion points, whilst leaving room for new discussion points to emerge. For the expert panel, UNEP-WCMC collated the key messages and findings identified during the World Café and formulated questions for the panellists based on those messages and findings. Questions addressed positive examples of local transformative change, ways to engage with values in order to challenge dominant paradigms, strategies to navigate continual shifts in policy, and to position biodiversity narrative within the context of “EU competitiveness”. 32 Outcomes of the workshop: 1. Intersectionality requires broader framing and inclusive knowledge production • World Café discussions confirmed that intersecting identities such as class, education, age, gender, race, migration, beliefs, and culture influence engagement with biodiversity. Participants recommended broadening beyond narrow demographics by replacing "religion" with "beliefs, worldviews, culture" and adding missing dimensions such as land tenure and caste. A critical recommendation was to call for the inclusion of affected communities in knowledge production processes and to target messages at decision-makers who control resources rather than only at communities themselves. 2. Values and behaviour interventions must address structural barriers alongside individual action • Participants affirmed the need to ground interventions in everyday life through immersive, accessible, co-designed experiences. However, they flagged barriers such as lack of resources to sustain actions in the community. Participants emphasised that business accountability must include clear timelines and binding commitments rather than aspirational goals alone, recognising that behaviour-focused interventions must be accompanied by regulatory incentives. 3. Genuine transformation requires multi-level approaches and realistic timeframes • Participants highlighted that multi-level approaches are needed, for example quick policy wins alongside long-term cultural shifts. Participants stressed that genuine transformation involves conflict and redistribution, not just consensus-building. Structural constraints such as debt and market pressures limit individual agency, highlighting the need for system mapping to precede intervention design. Timeframes for transformation should be realistic and span decades. Critically, participants cautioned against labelling incremental changes as "transformative," emphasising the need to distinguish between incremental change and fundamental system change. 4. Scaling requires addressing structural barriers and multiple spheres of influence • The expert panel discussions highlighted that local-scale transformation is shaped and constrained by institutional and systemic barriers. Scaling transformation requires working across multiple spheres of influence simultaneously, using regulatory tools (such as bans on single-use plastics where appropriate) alongside financial incentives. Panellists emphasised the importance of going beyond comfortable research areas to tackle monetary systems, multilateral processes, and high-impact sectors, while avoiding "transformation washing" where changes simply reproduce root causes under new labels. 5. Research structures must align with the timelines needed to unlock lasting transformation • Panellists identified a fundamental mismatch between short 3-to-4-year research funding cycles and the decades-long timeframes required for lasting forms of transformation. Recommendations included reevaluating what counts as good science, recognising marginalised knowledge systems, prioritising impact over traditional academic metrics, supporting interdisciplinary and community-engaged work, and 33 increasing policy engagement by scientists. Transformation should be treated as iterative work that builds on efforts that are already underway rather than something that is only seen as a future goal. Next steps Immediate actions for WP4 included revising the key messages to reflect validated findings on intersectionality, behaviour and values, and transformative change, and incorporating panel recommendations on scaling and governance into the D4.4 knowledge product focused on “synthesising behaviour change and intersectionality for prioritising biodiversity into EU and global processes”. The synthesis knowledge product will integrate these validated messages and recommendations to provide evidence-based, validated knowledge that bridges local innovation with systemic transformation. 5 Reflecting on lessons learned and challenges in Task 4.3 This section reflects on the main lessons learned and limitations encountered during the planning and implementation of the six validation workshops. The reflections presented below are based on UNEP-WCMC's own observations and feedback gathered during the implementation of Task 4.3. These lessons learned may serve to inform validation activities that are conducted as part of other Horizon Europe-funded research in future. 1. Challenges of in-person and hybrid workshop formats Bringing participants together in person proved challenging for these validation workshops. In the case of all six of the workshops, the participants were geographically dispersed across Europe and, in some cases, other parts of the world. This presented challenges for some participants, who highlighted that the time commitment and other logistical constraints made it difficult to justify attending in-person. When planning the first workshop for Task 4.3 (validating the transformative pathway and policy recommendations for the trade sector), a hybrid format was chosen. The rationale for hosting the workshop in a hybrid format, was the hope that having in-person participation would be conducive to an immersive and quality discussion, whilst still ensuring that those unable to attend in-person could participate online. However, on account of time and other logistical constraints, most participants ultimately opted to join the workshop online. This resulted in an experience that did not fully capitalise on the advantages of either format. Learning from this, subsequent workshops were hosted either fully in-person, capitalising on opportunities where participants were already coming together in person (e.g. the final PLANET4B event), or fully online. By adopting an in-person or online-only approach, the level of engagement and participation improved, and the workshop objectives were more fully achieved. 2. Iterative improvement through reflective practice The planning and delivery of the six workshops followed an iterative process. After each session, the organising team reflected on the outcomes, identifying what had worked well and what aspects could be improved. These lessons were systematically integrated into the design of subsequent workshops. This reflective approach contributed to progressively improving the structure, facilitation, and participant 34 engagement, ultimately improving the effectiveness of each workshop in meeting its intended objectives. 3. Representation and participation across stakeholder groups For the workshops focused on validating the policy relevance of PLANET4B’s results on values and behaviours, intersectionality and social inclusion, and transformational change, it proved challenging to identify and engage suitable participants from policy and business backgrounds. Whilst every effort was made to adapt the language and concepts in these workshops for non-expert audiences, the highly holistic and conceptual nature of these topics meant that it was difficult to identify and engage participants from these sectors to participate in the workshops. Consequently, participation from research and civil society organisations was higher in some workshops, with lower representation from policy and business stakeholders. This aside, there were fortunately other opportunities to engage with policy and business actors about PLANET4B’s research In WP4. In particular, Task 4.1 “Ensuring policy relevance through consultations with key enabling players” involved in-depth discussions with business and policy actors about the potential applicability of the project’s research for informing biodiversity-related decision-making in policy and business contexts. The results of these consultations can be found in Deliverable 4.1 “Entry points for upscaling findings at relevant scales identified based on consultations with key enabling players”. This experience reflects a broader challenge identified in research on science–policy– society interfaces: while the co-creation of knowledge with multiple actor groups can significantly enhance the uptake of research in policy and practice, meaningful cocreation requires these actors to be properly embedded in the project from start to finish. This level of engagement also necessarily requires time and financial resources to guarantee their involvement. In the PLANET4B project, representatives from policy and business did not have a formal ongoing role in the project, aside from those who participated voluntarily in the learning communities and advisory groups. As a result, their engagement in the validation workshops was more akin to consultation rather than co-creation. This limited level of involvement may, in turn, reduce the likelihood that these stakeholders actively take up or implement the recommendations discussed during the workshops. 6 Conclusion and outlook Task 4.3 set out to validate PLANET4B’s transformative methods and pathways for improving the prioritisation of biodiversity in decision-making. Through six carefully designed validation workshops, Task 4.3 created a platform for dialogue between actors representing policy, business, research and civil society, all of whom are important agents of change for improving how we prioritise biodiversity in decisionmaking. These workshops have not only served to validate the policy relevance and feasibility of PLANET4B’s findings, but they have also supported the co-production of knowledge. This knowledge is grounded in the results of PLANET4B’s research and complemented by the experience and perspectives of actors who can apply this knowledge in real-world decision-making contexts. Collectively, the findings from these workshops reaffirm the message articulated in the introduction that transformative change for biodiversity requires bridging the gap 35 between research, policy, and practice. By involving diverse actors from policy, practice, research and civil society in the validation of PLANET4B’s findings, Task 4.3 advanced the project’s objectives of ensuring the policy and business relevance of PLANET4B’s results. By improving the relevance and credibility of PLANET4B’s transformative pathways and methods, there is a greater likelihood that these findings will be taken up by those responsible for implementing change in policy and business contexts. Looking ahead, the outcomes of Task 4.3 provide valuable insights for future work. Within PLANET4B, they will continue to inform WP4’s efforts to synthesise and communicate the project’s results in a way that is relevant for policy and business across, namely through D4.4. Beyond the project, the insights gained through Task 4.3 affirm the importance of bringing together multiple actors to co-produce knowledge. Embedding such approaches into future Horizon Europe projects and related research is essential to ensuring that efforts to unlock transformative change for biodiversity are relevant, actionable, and capable of driving transformative change at scale.