Workshop report on commonalities and conflicts across theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making. Report No D1.5 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 — PLANET4B

BETTER DECISIONS FOR BIODIVERSITY AND PEOPLE Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B WORKSHOP REPORT ON COMMONALITIES AND CONFLICTS ACROSS THEORIES RELEVANT FOR BIODIVERSITY DECISION-MAKING 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 D1.5 Deliverable title Workshop report on commonalities and conflicts across theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making Task leader Radboud University (RU) Corresponding author Vinícius Mendes Dissemination level Public Status Final Deliverable description Workshop report of the second workshop of Task 1.4 of the Horizon Europe Project PLANET4B that identifies theory commonalities and conflicts. Version Status Date Authors/Reviewers 0.1 Draft 29/10/2023 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); David Barton (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Ilkhom Soliev 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 (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) 0.2 Draft 30/10/2023 Reviewers: Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); Alex Franklin (CU); Agnes Zolyomi; Torsten Wähler (MLU) (only parts that were not co-authored – case study stories – were reviewed) 0.3 Draft 02/11/2023 Authors: Vinícius Mendes (RU); Cristina Y. A. Inoue (RU); Alexander Engen Aas-Hanssen (OOF); David Barton (NINA); Reidun Bolsø (OOF); Marta Bonetti (UNIPI); Yennie Bredin (NINA); Geraldine Brown (CU); Gianluca Brunori (UNIPI); Maryna Bykova (CGE); Kármen Czett (ESSRG); Helene Figari (NINA); Alex Franklin (CU); Roberto Gronda (UNIPI); Robert Home (FiBL); Johan Hval (OOF); Sandra Karner (IFZ); Eszter Kelemen (ESSRG); Giacomo Lampredi (UNIPI); Borbála Lipka (ESSRG); Geeta Ludhra (DC); Subash Ludhra (DC); Andreas Motschiunig (FUG); Pedro Navarro Gambín (UNIPI); György Pataki (ESSRG); Ammalia Podlaszewska (CGE); Ghezal Sabir (FiBL); Zafar Saydaliev (CGE); Ilkhom Soliev (MLU); David Steinwender (IFZ); Lina Tennhardt (FiBL); Anita Thaler (IFZ); Daniele Vergamini (UNIPI); Matteo Villa (UNIPI) 1.0 Final 03/11/2023 Reviewer: Torsten Wähler (MLU) Contributors to action/intervention directly leading to this deliverable Torsten Wähler (MLU); Agnes Zolyomi Recommended citation Mendes, V., Inoue, C. Y. A., Aas-Hanssen, A. E., Barton, D., Bolsø, R., Bonetti, M., Bredin, Y., Brown, G., Brunori, G., Bykova, M., Czett, K., Figari, H., Franklin, A., Gronda, R., Home, R., Hval, J., Karner, S., Kelemen, E., Lampredi, G., Lipka, B., Ludhra, G., Ludhra, S., Motschunig, A., Navarro Gambín, P., Pataki, G., Podlaszewska, A., Sabir, G., Saydaliev, Z., Soliev, I., Steinwender, D., Tennhardt, L., Thaler, A., Vergamini, D., & Villa, M. (2023). Workshop report on commonalities and conflicts across theories relevant for biodiversity decision-making. Report No D1.5 of the Horizon Europe Project 101082212 – PLANET4B. Brussels: European Research Executive Agency. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.14886840 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. v Acknowledgements The PLANET4B team would like to thank workshop participants for their time and willingness to share information, experiences and opinions on the second workshop to debate theories commonalities and conflicts. Special thanks go to the PLANET4B case study partners, without whose commitment the workshop would not have been possible. vi List of abbreviations and acronyms Acronym Definition CG CzechGlobe – Global Change Research Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences CGE Culture Goes Europe CM Consortium Meeting CU Coventry University DC Dadima's CIC. ESSRG Environmental Social Science Research Group FiBL Research Institute of Organic Agriculture FUG Forum Urban Gardening GD Good Issue Ltd. IFZ Interdisciplinary Research Centre for Technology, Work and Culture IPBES Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services KPI Key Performance Indicator MLU Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg NINA Norwegian Institute for Nature Research OOF Greater Oslo Council for Outdoor Recreation PLANET4B understanding Plural values, intersectionality, Leverage points, Attitudes, Norms, behaviour and social lEarning in Transformation for Biodiversity decision making RU Radboud University UNIPI University of Pisa Work Package WP Workshop 2 WS2 1 Table of Contents Key deliverable information ........................................................................................................ iii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... v List of abbreviations and acronyms ........................................................................................... vi Executive summary ...................................................................................................................... 2 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Background information .................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Theory workshop 2: goals and expected outcomes ........................................................ 4 2 Planning and organisation of the workshop ........................................................................... 5 2.1 Crafting the storytelling exercise and the workshop sessions ................................ 5 2.2 Materials for preparation and participation ...................................................................... 6 2.3 Documenting the activities of the workshop .................................................................... 7 3 “Stories of change for a PLANET4B in 2050…”: connecting cases with policies, theories, and leverage points through storytelling ............................................................................... 8 3.1 Place-based case – Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) ....................... 9 3.2 Place-based case – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom (Dadima’s CIC/CU) ........................................................................... 11 3.3 Place-based case – Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) ..................................... 12 3.4 Place-based case – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) .................. 15 3.5 Place-based case – Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) .. 16 3.6 Sectoral case – “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) ........... 18 3.7 Sectoral case – Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) ........................ 19 3.8 Sectoral case – Environmental awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) .......... 22 3.9 Sectoral case – Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) ......................................... 23 3.10 Sectoral case – Trade and GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) 25 3.11 Sectoral case – Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) ........ 27 4 Potential policy recommendations ......................................................................................... 27 5 Theories of change and leverage points behind the stories ............................................... 28 6 Reflecting upon theories’ commonalities and conflicts ....................................................... 32 7 Conclusion and outlook .......................................................................................................... 33 References ................................................................................................................................... 35 Statement on data availability .................................................................................................... 35 Statement on ethics .................................................................................................................... 35 Annex ........................................................................................................................................... 36 List of participants attending the second workshop (WS2) of Task 1.4, Work Package 1 (October 27th, 2023) ................................................................................................................. 36 2 Executive summary • Workshop 2 steered cases to think about what theories underlie their work, what leverage points they aim to address, how and what policy recommendations may entail for them to achieve their goals. Thus, connecting WP1 with WP3 and WP4 through WP1’s Task 1.4. • This workshop took place during the second PLANET4B Consortium Meeting, from October 25th-27th, 2023, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. • All eleven case studies of PLANET4B were asked to connect their cases with a theory of change from the Inventory of theories produced in Task 1.2 and refined in Task 1.4. • For each theory selected, case study representatives indicated which leverage points would be needed to trigger “transformation” in relation to biodiversity decision-making in the context of the respective case. • Each case told their story of change for a PLANET4B in 2050, illustrating potential policy recommendations, theories of change, and leverage points that are compatible with the goals, actions and research of their case. • The exercise prompted the consortium members to revisit the updated theory inventory, and to use it throughout the project as a source of theoretical reference as the case studies progress. • In conclusion, the workshop helped cases not only to reflect better about their own research goals and processes, but also allowed them to know more and provide suggestions on the work in process of all the other cases. 3 1 Introduction In sustainability science, storytelling has been used “to understand how citizen science is currently influencing environmental policy and associated decision making” (Wehn et al., 2021, p.1). In this capacity, Uta Wehn and colleagues developed the Citizen Science Impact Story Telling Approach (CSISTA), in which they interactively designed instruments to be used as tools primarily for citizen science practitioners seeking to understand or communicate policy impacts. Others have applied storytelling specifically in biodiversity research. Louder and Wyborn (2020), for example, used the idea of “biodiversity narratives” to revisit “the main contemporary narratives from within the biodiversity space to reflect on their underpinning categories, myths and causal assumptions.” For these authors, the process or revisiting current and (potential) future biodiversity narratives is important to understand the prospect of change towards better biodiversity understanding and prioritisation in decision-making, since “narratives shape human understanding and underscore policy, practice and action. From individuals to multilateral institutions, humans act based on collective stories” (Louder and Wyborn, 2020, p.251). Interacting with narratives through storytelling can guide our way toward transformative biodiversity decision-making, since: “[…] The transformative potential of narrative may not lie in superficial changes in messaging, but in using narrative to bring multiple ways of knowing into productive dialogue to revisit biodiversity and foster critical reflection” (Louder and Wyborn, 2020, p.251). Taking the above into account, this report documents the main outcomes of the second workshop (WS2) on theory commonalities and conflicts in PLANET4B, which was organised by Task 1.4, under Work Package (WP) 1. This interactive workshop aimed to identify theory commonalities, complementarities and possible conflicting variables and mechanisms, in order to create a shared language for and understanding of interventions for transformative change among PLANET4B’s wide range of disciplines. This report has seven parts, including this introduction. Part 1 continues with the background information regarding WS2, as well as the goals and expected outcomes. Part 2 documents the process of planning and organising WS2. Part 3 presents the 11 stories in a nutshell. Part 4 presents potential policy recommendations that emerged from these stories. Part 5 discusses the theories of change and leverage points mobilised by each story. Part 6 discusses some commonalities and conflicts amongst the various theories. Part 7 presents the conclusions and outlook of WS2. 1.1 Background information The WS2 was organised on October 27th, 2023, as a back-to-back event with the 2023 Radboud Conference of Earth System Governance (ESG Conference) (October 22nd-27th, 2023) and the second Consortium Meeting (CM) of PLANET4B, (October 25th-27th, 2023). This created the opportunity of PLANET4B partners to not only participate in the project’s CM, but also in an international conference that is widely known by the scientific community working in the field of sustainability governance. Some of the PLANET4B partners presented their research connected to the project in a ESG Conference Panel entitled: “Transformative interventions to strengthen 10 Figure 5. Case representatives from NINA and OOF simulating an interview during the storytelling activity on October 27th, 2023, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. During the questions and comments from the audience, the case representatives were asked if, in 2050, the private sector or public sector would be responsible for managing the community of peers. The case leads observed that, in the story of change, the municipalities would be the providers of the service (mentoring model), not the private sector. Other questions related to what extent nature was special in this case. Case partners replied that nature can be empowering, inclusive, and help people tackle loneliness, especially due to the community of peers who enjoy nature, and share experiences about how to circumvent barriers and challenges (information systems, public services, etc.). Moreover, the importance of nature as a place for restoration, relaxation, mental health care, social bonding and physical exercise has gained much attention over the last years. To the extent that such benefits contribute to a stronger prioritisation of biodiversity in planning and decision-making processes, it is crucial that the specific needs of vulnerable groups (e.g. woman, children and people with disabilities) are recognised and taken into account. The theory of change that helped the policy recommendation to be implemented (i.e. the creation of a grassroots civil society organisation of peers composed of people with disabilities that enjoy recreational activities in nature) was institutional etnography Instituitional ethnography postulates that the life conditions of specific groups are formed within the matrix of concrete relationships that over time have become institutionalised. In accordance with this, institutional ethnographers study specific 11 “problematics” by taking the everyday experiences of the concerned stakeholders as point of entry into the field (e.g. access to nature for people with disabilities). Hence, the turning point in the story was that the voices of disabled people was finally heard. In the context of access to nature and outdoor recreation, the “big idea” was to start listening to those with the lived experiences instead of speaking on their behalf. 3.2 Place-based case – Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom (Dadima’s CIC/CU) This Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minorities (England, United Kingdom) story was based on a narrative that started with a personal motivation for the building of a community of Black, Asian, and minority ethnic communities in the United Kingdom led by Dadima’s CIC. Initially, in 2023, global biodiversity loss, inequality and injustice were challenges faced by the community. Additionally, the following challenges were faced by the community at the systemic level: the powers of corporate greed, global warming / climate change, shareholders of big business, the need to feed and house over seven billion on planet Earth, individual greed, misinformation, poor education, a lack of understanding or wanting to learn, ignorance, and fear of change. The Big Idea to help overcome these challenges emerged within Dadima’s CIC, through their working partnerships with local groups and organisations, including The Chiltern Open Air museum, The Aston Rowant Nature Reserve, Oxfordshire County Council, and the Watlington Climate Action Group / Watlington Environmental Group. Thanks to these partnerships, Dadima’s CIC was able to share the findings of their own research (and the findings of the PLANET4B project) to encourage local stakeholders to positively impact local biodiversity/bio abundance by changing farming methods, encouraging the planting of more plants and trees, promoting reuse, recovery and re-cycling, changing their eating habits to impact sustainability, keeping and maintaining green spaces, and enjoying the green spaces to improve health and wellbeing. The next chapter of the story took place in 2050. By then, Dadima’s CIC had scaledout a community of ambassadors across the United Kingdom. Ambassadors are members of the community that share stories and help promote change towards better biodiversity and nature prioritisation. Thanks to these ambassadors, biodiversity in the United Kingdom was considerably improved by 2050, including: • A local community that really cares about the environment • Word spreading through ambassadors and via personal connections/networks • The achievement of multiple small changes, on the basis that these have more traction than a single big change • Local farmers changing the way they farm and looking how to enhance biodiversity 12 Figure 6. Image shown during DC/CU storytelling, illustrating one ambassador of change sharing a story in one of Dadima’s CIC walks in Nature in the United Kingdom. In the final moment of the storytelling exercise, the presenter played an audio with a poetry (narrated in the audio by himself) about biodiversity. This poetry illustrates the type of work that is being done within the community, and that by 2050 will be multiplied, and, as a result biodiversity and bio-abundance will grow, the community will adopt a more sustainable way of living, climate change will be no longer a threat, and eating habits will change towards healthier and sustainable food. During the Q&A session, one comment discussed the strategy for outscaling the success of the case. Outscaling will target other cities and rural areas across the United Kingdom, copying and replicating the ambassadors’ messages. 3.3 Place-based case – Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) The urban youth (Germany) case told a story about Artificial Intelligence (AI) replacing teachers in the classroom, and its potential connections with environmental education and experimental learning towards empowering youth and building a new society. In 2023, students experienced very bad teaching in Germany, where there was a substantial shortage of teachers in schools. To overcome the problem of the scarcity of teachers, community members and students started to develop co-creative activities to learn together, particularly through environmental education. By 2050, the learning 13 community had spread all over the globe, where community members and students incorporated the practice of learning together. Additionally, two strategies would be essential: place-based education via open curriculum and outdoor classrooms. These would provide opportunities for young people: • to learn how best to approach communities and report to the policy level; • to identify the superpower that is owned by each community; • to become more environmentally conscious citizens; • to have compassion and reconnect the spirit of young people with green environments and ecosystems. Figure 7. Image presented during the storytelling of the case, showing one of the co-creative workshops of CGE in Germany. Figure 7 and Figure 8 were presented during the storytelling exercise. Figure 7 illustrates one of the actual exercises of CGE in a co-creative workshop with students in Germany. Figure 8 provides an example of a superpower map, a tool to help identify the skillset and expertise in a community. 14 Figure 8. Image presented during the storytelling of the case, showing the Superpower map, one of the ways to help identify the skillset and expertise in the community. The theory of change mobilised in this story was empowerment theory, which helps differentiate between empowering and empowered individuals. During the Q&A session, it was asked if the case is using, as a reference, the EU GreenComp: the European sustainability competence framework.1 The case leaders replied that the issue the story (and the case) tries to tackle is the lack of human resources for youth education and learning in Germany. The proposed solution deals with a place-based education that is easier to grasp for younger generations. Another question targeted how sustainability education can include biodiversity or make more room for biodiversity education. Case leaders replied that they organise activities with young people in their surrounding environments and explore different meanings on the spot. In a sense, they do not try to define biodiversity, instead, they leave it open for 1 The GreenComp is a reference framework for sustainability competences. It provides a common ground to learners and guidance to educators, advancing a consensual definition of what sustainability as a competence entails. 15 students to define biodiversity in different ways, highlighting the importance of these interventions to provide a safe space for these young people to better realise what they feel about biodiversity, as well as other environmental topics. Following these realworld experiences, the case uses experimental workshops centred around how to practice better biodiversity understanding, prioritisation, and care. 3.4 Place-based case – Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) In the edible city and inclusion (Graz, Austria) storytelling, a silent video was shown in the background, displaying photos taken during the activities involving urban gardens in Graz, as well as images from some of the previous workshops applied by the case. Figure 9. Case leaders from IFZ and FUG during storytelling activity on October 27th, 2023, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. An accompanying oral story was given in a role-playing format, in which the Mayor was located at the centre, and was surrounded by key stakeholders of the municipality of Graz. Besides the Mayor, the story included: a gender representative of a small NGO on the topic of poverty, which had a gender-sensitive and inclusive approach to implement a green space in the city of Graz; a researcher on education; the head of 16 the FUG, which coordinates the hub for social gardening; and the leader of a widely known private sector company. The role playing dynamic involved each of the players presenting their view and preferences for the strategy on Edible City Graz. This pilot included aspects of intersectionality (for example, the inclusion of citizens with social markers of difference), specifically those that are residents of Graz. For example, migrant women contribute with the Edible biodiverse-gardens in Graz in small groups (sharing information and providing ecosystem plans from their home countries). By 2050, the project of the Edible City of Graz would reach migrant and single-parent mothers through school gardens. New forms of teaching would be adopted (teaching towards multilingual teaching – experiential learning and non-formal education), in a way that formal education would then become knowledge co-creation. In private companies, business leaders would encourage employees to pay more attention to nature. In the session of Q&A, the case leaders were asked about the kinds of activities that were considered more fun, since this story of change was based on the actual work within the case study. Case leaders replied that systems mapping activities were engaging. Upon being asked the question of: how to convince the Mayor of Graz to adopt the idea of an edible city, case leaders observed that policymakers usually want to be sure about the benefit they will receive. Additionally, according to the presenters colleagues asking “hard questions” during the CM also inspired the case leaders to look deeper into the process. Other experiments which are currently under consideration and were envisioned for 2050 include non-conventional edible plants, building collective kitchens so that citizens can cook together, establishing more sustainable plants, and the implementation of food neighbourhoods. The role of education is also key. Instead of seeing environmental education as something static, the case aims to establish relations with women (e.g. migrant women) who have knowledge from practice. Also it was noted that: • School gardens and single mothers paved the way for new kitchens; • Multilingual and multidisciplinary education was central for the transformations; • Knowledge co-creation was key in the management of urban gardens. Thus, the proposal of the story, and the case, is based on more sustainable use of green spaces as places in which to learn about biodiversity, building urban gardens collectively, via social gardening and better human-nature and human-human relations. 3.5 Place-based case – Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion (FiBL) The Swiss attitudes towards agro-biodiversity and religion story was a role play, involving a narrator (the case leader), and five members of the audience (the latter having been previously contacted by the case leader to play a role on a story that took place in 2050). Each person represented a sector in politics and society, including local 17 media, EU policies, Cantonal/federal policies, Church policies and a farmer with religious beliefs who was part of the case study research in PLANET4B. The idea was to express, in a anecdotal manner, how such religious beliefs impacted or were connected to biodiversity governance. The intensive case study associated with this story engages with members from farming communities in areas with different religious beliefs in Switzerland. To do this, a geographic lens is helping to identify areas where the farmers are expected to come from Catholic or Protestant backgrounds, while also being of these faiths. Figure 10. Cards used by the case study leader while telling the story of change. 18 The work being developed and presented through the role play story is based on two theories and one model (along with the identified psychological factors influencing sustainable agricultural practices). These are the Bronfenbrenner's Ecological Theory and Functional Theory of Values, as well as the individual-social-material model. The leverage point being triggered is “the power to transcend paradigms” as the religious beliefs correspond to the change in mindsets that would affect behaviour of farmers regarding their engagement in agro-biodiversity related practices. The theories and the psychological factors show the effect that religious beliefs and values have on behaviour including sustainable agricultural behaviour. Figure 11. Case leaders from FiBL and other PLANET4B partners during storytelling activity on October 27th, 2023, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. During the Q&A session, the case leader was asked whether the case proposed a reinterpretation of religious texts. The case leader noted that such a reinterpretation is happening today already in various spheres of society. Another question was regarding how religions are important and relevant in public life nowadays, and which kind of policy change is desirable bringing religious beliefs to work in favour of better biodiversity prioritisation. The case leader highlighted that it is important to cover, in the context of the case study, how spirituality as fundamentally being part of religion needs to be revived in relation to the concept of biodiversity. . 3.6 Sectoral case – “From ego-system to eco-system” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) The ego-system to eco-stem fashion story (Italy) highlighted how labour exploitation in some countries (affecting in particular women, poor people, leading to unsafe labour conditions) are related to environmental and biodiversity policies in the fashion industry. The presenter started by showing news about clothes repair with a headline reading “Repair is the new Cool.” Beginning with the scenario that in the future it will bedifficult to find new clothes, the story teller proceeded to explain how the society arrived at this situation. In the 2020s the circularity was based on reductive interpretations of the same concepts, where biodiversity was seen as expendable. It was based on extractive industries (the story atmosphere, via slides, became very dark, full of conflicts and exogenous schocks), putting the fashion industry progressively in a crisis. 19 However, in 2050, a new model and radical idea of circular economy based on efficiency, substitution, and sufficiency emerges. Figure 12. Case representative from UNIPI and the audience during storytelling activity on October 27th, 2023, in Nijmegen, The Netherlands. The theories that connect such a systemic transformation link experiences, niches, models, ideas, and discourses (including policy reccomandations). One such theory is the schismogenic dynamics, or out-of-control process. Another is the positive feedback loop towards evolutionary cul-de-sac (at the edge of chaos). In addition, there was the emergence of previously unconsidered models-ideas as a possible way out of tensions and conflicts (strange attractors), promoting fast changes in practices, processes, models, and regulations, and eventually promoting a paradigm shift. During the Q&A session, it was debated (as prompted by one of the visual slides) who are the elephants in the room. Overproduction and working conditions were considered the problems in the sector that EU policies do not tackle in depth. Overproduction is just mentioned by the EU policies, but not discussed in depth. Working conditions include labour exploitation, particularly in developing countries. 3.7 Sectoral case – Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) The agro-biodiversity management in Hungary story starts in 2023. By then, EU funding agriculture and culture are treated separated from each other very much, which leaves little to no space for projects and initiatives working on the management or development of agrobiodiversity: 1) funding of agriculture mostly focuses on production, 2) funding of nature conservation mostly focuses in wild habitats, 3) funding of cultural events mostly focuses on human culture, 4) The strict separation of these fields adds to the declining interest in agrobiodiversity and to the permanent loss of our agricultural heritage. Then, the case’s story proposes a solution to the problem: 26 contributed in many roles but I am going to focus on their case study on international trade. 3 years after the Planet 4B second consortium meeting – Vinicius adopted me. I was 9 years old. Now, I am 33 years old I am a quilombola descendent from Pará state. Vitória’s activist parents were murdered by killers hired by land grabbers… but that is another story. I grew up seeing my foster father as an engaged scholar-activist and public intellectual. His first professional experience in Planet4B as postdoctoral researcher was successful and the case study on soy and beef trade between Brazil and the Netherlands influenced EU, Dutch and Brazilian policies. (…)“ The following steps of the story included how, in 2025, the recommendations of PLANET4B for policies in relation to the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) were based on an intersectional environmental justice approach. The transformation towards better biodiversity prioritisation would require actions of the Dutch government and at the EU level. The Netherlands decided to create a set of programmes and policies to scale down animal farming, foster plant-based diets, biodiversity restoration, creation of new protected areas but also establishing a programme for tourism in farms and around parks. More specifically, in relation to the Amazon and the Cerrado, the EU and the Dutch government created long term programmes to foster socio-biodiversity value-chains, locally based, with local community ownership. As a consequence, such local value chains help local citizens to empower themselves to generate income and well-being through forest restoration and boosting local economies based on native fruits, essential oils, nuts, fibers, ecotourism and payments for ecosystem services. These programmes were created not only for local people to produce goods and services, but also to help market them locally, regionally, nationally and internationally. The subsequent parts of the story take place in 2050… by then, soy and beef trade were scaled down as a result of changes in diets and farming practices in Europe, US and China. In addition, stringent regulations created incentives for shifts towards diversification (diversity of forest products instead of monocultures) and sustainable services – e.g. community-based ecotourism in restored forests, bird watchers in the Cerrado biome, boat rides along Amazon rivers to watch pink dolphins were implemented as sustainable activities in the two biomes. In this sense, discussions on intersectionality, as well as degrowth, post-development, and well-being economies theories will animate further discussions within this case study. During the Q&A session, colleagues asked how to convince “capitalism” to reduce the soy and beef value chains globally? The approach for transformation is to “connect developmentalism and social environmentalism”. This included decolonial thinking and the perspective of degrowth. 27 3.11 Sectoral case – Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EUNorway (NINA) In the sustainable investment behaviour storytelling presentation, one of the case’s leaders observed that people's stories are always the stories of biases – our background defines who we are, what risks we are prone to, what our beliefs are. Our backgrounds define also how we make decisions under risk and uncertainty, and what we consider (or fail to consider) while making a decision. In the story there were two characters, with two different stories: • Knut – self-made man, who succeeded and is on his growth journey in business. • Nina – raised in a family deeply involved in environmental activism and had acquired a comprehensive education in sustainable development and environmental studies. Her upbringing and academic background had instilled in her a profound understanding of the critical importance of ecological balance. Both Nina and Knut work for the same company and are invited to share their approach to long-term company strategy proposal. Knut focuses on cutting costs, optimising, KPIs (Key performance indicators), earning money and growth but perhaps this is not aligned with sustainability or environmental protection. In contrast, Nina looks at the problem holistically, thinking of sustainable development, people around the company, all stakeholders’ needs and environmental impact. Then a transformation takes place: nature-related disclosure in finance becomes mandatory, supported by reliable biodiversity impact metrics demaded by empathetic investors. The story is inspired by a potential transformation for nature-related financial disclosure by private companies, in order to have more “Ninas” than “Knuts”. Questions and comments followed the presentation. At the policy levels: how the policy is designed has a lot of influence on individuals behaviour (regulations or directives). How can we measure environmental aspects in investments? Ideas for going forward included analysing profiles of investors; designing a portfolio for investors, while one might think about higher return without big risks; or constructing a portfolio to invest into funds that value nature and biodiversity. 4 Potential policy recommendations Some potential policy recommendations emerged from the majority of the cases, as this section briefly discusses. In the case Urban Youth (CGE/MLU), placed-based education is a vibrant approach to education that takes students out into their communities, to learn, to do, and to grow as human beings. Students are given the opportunity to learn the subject matter in deep and lasting ways, understand the places in which they live, and participate in authentic community renewal projects that make a difference to themselves, to others, and to the world around them. By engaging the local, place-based education opens a wide range of possibility for purposeful engagement for all learners. 28 In the case of Fashion in Italy (UNIPI), the policy recommendation included an economy of flexibility-based model designed around three principles: Efficiency, Substitution, Sufficiency. In the case of Agro-biodiversity in Hungary (ESSRG), a policy recommendation was for Agricultural Heritage as a sub-category of European Heritage. Doing so would create space for projects that focus on the maintenance of agrobiodiversity or building bridges between agriculture and everyday life. Europe is home to thousands of traditional varieties of cultivated species, but this diversity keeps declining year on year. Giving greater policy recognition to agricultural heritage could help to raise awareness about agrobiodiversity, promote its importance and empower projects that connect citizens and agriculture. The case of Trade and GVCs (RU) included the importance of holding the agrobusiness sector, as well as the financial sectors and pension funds, accountable in relation to their local socio-environmental impacts. Also promoted through the case was Human Rights compliance mechanisms for corporations (due diligence) and the possibility to take corporations to European Court of Human Rights. In the case of Sustainable Finance (NINA), a potential policy recommendation by 2050 is making biodiversity reporting obligatory, not voluntary. If biodiversity reporting and disclosures become obligatory then they will be grounded in actios aligned with Nature prioritisation. We expect that in 2050 we are in a situation where companies are in touch with environmental institutes that can get them better biodiversity metrics, link to biophysical data and investors can make data driven investment decisions. These are potential policy recommendations that emerged from the stories of change, but do not necessarily represent the final policy recommendations of these five cases in PLANET4B. The remaining six cases did not make explicit mentions to policy recommendations in their storytelling presentations. 5 Theories of change and leverage points behind the stories Table 1 summarised all the theories of change mobilised by the cases in their storytelling exercises, according to their own choice, based on consultations with the updated inventory of theories. Theories that inspired the transformative change in the 11 stories include: communities of practice, institutional etnography, empowerment theory, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, functional theory of values, individualsocial-material model, paradigmatic shifts, policy integration, feminist care theory, social practice framework, human-nature interaction, institutional change theory, path dependency, window of opportunity, structural change, prospect theory, modern portfolio theory, and the theory of planned behaviour. The table also included all cited leverage points. Most of the leverage points addressed in the storytelling exercise, were deeper leverage points targeting design and intent. 29 Table 1. Categories of cases and respective theories of change and leverage points emergent from the storytelling exercise. Category Case Theory(ies) of change Leverage points Intensive Nature recreation in Oslo, Norway (OOF/NINA) Institutional ethnography (aims to produce knowledge for people instead of about them) DESIGN 6. The structure of information flows (access to info.) INTENT 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises Intensive Opening nature to Black, Asian and ethnic minority communities in the United Kingdom (DC/CU) Communities of practice DESIGN 6. The structure of information flows (access to info.) 4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure INTENT 1. The power to transcend paradigms Intensive Urban Youth in Germany (CGE/MLU) Empowerment theory DESIGN 6. The structure of information flows (access to info.) 5. The rules of the system (incentives and constraints) 4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure INTENT 3. The goals of the system 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises 1. The power to transcend paradigms Intensive Edible City and Inclusion in Graz, Austria (FUG/IFZ) Communities of practice by Sheila Jasanoff – 30 Intensive Swiss attitudes towards agrobiodiversity and religion (FiBL) Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory Functional Theory of Values Individual-social-material model INTENT 1. The power to transcend paradigms Extensive “Fom ego-system to ecosystem” in fashion in Italy (UNIPI) Schismogenic dynamics > Out-of-control process Positive feedback loop towards evolutionary cul-desac (at the edge of chaos) Emergent previously unconsidered models-ideas as possible way out Tensions and conflicts (strange attractors) Fast changes in practices, processes, models, regulations Shifting paradigms All LPs mobilised (paradigmatic shift) Extensive Agro-biodiversity management in Hungary (ESSRG) Policy Integration Feminist Care Theory Social Practice Framework PARAMETERS 12. Parameters (such as subsidies, tax, standards) DESIGN 6. The structure of information flow (not part of formal education, but through engagement with these festivals) 4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure (structural change) Extensive Environmnetal awareness in Education in Hungary (ESSRG) Human-Nature interaction (individual behaviour change) Institutional change theory (systemic change) Path dependency (systemic change) PARAMETERS 11. Size of buffers – low no. of teachers with natural science background FEEDBACK 8. Negative feedback loops – deteriorating 31 PISA results, less and less students choosing university/jobs in environmental science, braindrain 7. Positive feedback loops – students engaged in school gardens have an increased interest and better results in tests, which also motivates their teachers DESIGN 6. The structure of information – from frontal education to experiental learning which enhance the capabilities of the less priviliged ones INTENT 4. The power to add, change, evolve, selforganise – school gardens as bottom-up initiatives emerging in schools where the school master gives freedom to the teachers 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises – changing the mindset (attitudes, deeply held values, cultural norms) of the future generation (who are being the decision makers in 2050) Extensive Agriculture and migration in the EU (FiBL) Policy integration – Extensive Trade and GVCs soy/beef from Brazil to the EU/Netherlands (RU) Window of opportunity A window of opportunity, also called a margin of opportunity DESIGN 6. The structure of information flows 32 or critical window, is a period of time during which some action can be taken that will achieve a desired outcome. Once this period is over, or the "window is closed", the specified outcome is no longer possible Structural change The structural change theory focuses on the mechanism by which underdeveloped economies transform their domestic economic structures (access to info.) (window of opportunity) 4. The power to add, change, evolve, or self-organise system structure (structural change) Extensive Sustainable investment behaviour Global-EU-Norway (NINA) Prospect theory Modern portfolio theory Theory of Planned Behaviour PARAMETERS 12. Parameters (such as subsidies, tax, standards) FEEDBACK 8. The strength of negative feedback loops 7. The gain around driving positive feedback loops DESIGN 6. The structure of information flows (access to info.) INTENT 3. The goals of the system 2. The mindset or paradigm out of which the system arises 1. The power to transcend paradigms 6 Reflecting upon theories’ commonalities and conflicts Investigating theory commonalities and conflicts can be reinterpreted as an exercise for the consortium partners to understand better both the 11 cases, and the conceptual, theoretical, and epistemological approaches utilised by the 11 cases. 33 Based on the CM activities and different sessions, in particular the WS2, and considering further the comments, questions, interactions, the 11 stories told and the written input on theories of change and leverage points, summarised in section 3 of this report, we understand that: • At this stage, the theories behind the case study research have more similarities than conflicts. They do not present a risk of cases developing outcomes that are not understandable or uninterpretable by the other cases; • All cases have demonstrated an ability to interact with the theoretical and empirical transformations targeted by the other cases, which means that a great amount of synergy is already shared amongst cases; • Furthermore, the exercise in WS2 allowed cases to revisit the updated theory inventory, which will be further used throughout the project as a source of theoretical reference for the case studies as they progress. • Although no major conflict was identified amongst the theories being deployed or applied by the cases, some cases demonstrated a modest approach to theories at this stage. This is likely due to to them still being in the midst of agreeing with their recently created learning communities / stakeholder boards, the aims (and/or parts of system to be tackled). The diverse cases presented variations in their theoretical/epistemological focus. We observed differences in relation to perspectives that emphasise actions at the local, national, EU or global levels and in the level of analysis (local – global/sectoral). Furthermore, we observed that the emphasis of some cases is on constellations of actors – local actors/social movements – whereas in other cases, there is an emphasis on governments or corporations. Additionally, theoretical/epistemological differences were identified between systems approaches (leverage points), institutionalism (analyses of markets and/or government/policy institutions), and critical theories (intersectionality and power analysis). 7 Conclusion and outlook WS2 gathered representatives from all consortium partners of PLANET4B in Nijmegen for a day of co-creative activities. These activities allowedcases to reflect upon the different theories of change mobilised in their research, and allowed for interactions among cases in PLANET4B. The majority of the case study partners were confident that their work will have, or is already having, impact leading to policy change (Figure 17). 34 Figure 17. Reaction of the CM participants during one of the last sessions of the CM – celebrating impact of the project as regards the achievement of some KPIs. October 27th, 2023, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. This workshop helped cases reflect upon some theory commonalities and conflicts. In parallel, a series of actions will guide our work in the next months in the context of Task 1.4, leading the way to our third and final workshop of theories in PLANET4B, planned for April 2024 (WS3). Firstly, in the broader context of the project, cases will continue the process of reflecting on commonalities and conflicts as the learning communities and stakeholder boards are continuously co-defining the goals and discussing the links between theory and action in each case study. Secondly, the identification of theory commonalities in relation to the leverage points framework will need further reflection from WP1 and Task 1.4 leaders, in a way that allows coproduction of articles, scientific papers, or other KPIs in the period before WS3. 35 References Abson, D. J., Fischer, J., Leventon, J., Newig, J., Schomerus, T., Vilsmaier, U., ... & Lang, D. J. (2017). Leverage points for sustainability transformation. Ambio, 46, 30–39. DOI: 10.1007/s13280-016-0800-y. Louder, E., & Wyborn, C. (2020). Biodiversity narratives: stories of the evolving conservation landscape. Environmental Conservation, 47(4), 251–259. DOI: 10.1017/s0376892920000387. Wehn, U., Ajates, R., Fraisl, D., Gharesifard, M., Gold, M., Hager, G., ... & Wood, C. (2021). Capturing and communicating impact of citizen science for policy: A storytelling approach. Journal of Environmental Management, 295, 113082. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113082. Statement on data availability Data used to produce this report included notes taken by the authors during the workshop, power point presentations and other sources of media (audio and video) shared with the authors via the internal data repository of the project (SharePoint). None of these data sources is publicly available since they include personal data from participants. Statement on ethics This report does include pictures from the workshop’s participants, as well as their names, included in Annex 1. According to the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) of the European Union (EU), names and pictures of individuals are personal data. The necessary consent forms have been signed by all participants, requesting them to provide an authorisation for their names and pictures to be included in this report. The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.