# Transformative change in the global post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. Workshop report 23-25-26 June 2020

Marco Fritz, Jorge Ventocilla, Karla E. Locher-Krause, Heidi Wittmer, Ute Jacob, Didier Babin, Thomas Bobo, Nerea Aizpurua, Juliette C. Young, Marie Vandewalle, et al.

► To cite this version:

Marco Fritz, Jorge Ventocilla, Karla E. Locher-Krause, Heidi Wittmer, Ute Jacob, et al. Transformative change in the global post-2020 Biodiversity Framework. Workshop report 23-25-26 June 2020. European Union, 60 p., 2020, 978-92-76-21449-6. 10.2777/79493. hal-05181082

HAL Id: hal-05181082

https://hal.science/hal-05181082v1

Submitted on 23 Jul 2025

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

# Transformative change in the global post-2020 Biodiversity Framework

Workshop report

23-25-26 June 2020

Independent
Expert
Report

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>
Transformative Change in the Post2020 Biodiversity Framework

Workshop report 23-25-26 June 2020

European Commission

Directorate-General-General for Research and Innovation

Directorate C - Healthy Planet

Unit C3 - Climate & Planetary Boundaries

Contact: Marco Fritz

Email: RTD-BIODIVERSITY@ec.europa.eu

European Commission

B-1049 Brussels

Manuscript completed in August 2020.

This document has been prepared for the European Commission, however it reflects the views only of the authors, and the European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this publication.

More information on the European Union is available on the internet (http://europa.eu).

<table><tr><td>Print</td><td>ISBN 978-92-76-21450-2</td><td>doi: 10.2777/767355</td><td>KI-04-20-464-EN-C</td></tr><tr><td>PDF</td><td>ISBN 978-92-76-21449-6</td><td>doi: 10.2777/79493</td><td>KI-04-20-464-EN-N</td></tr></table>

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020

© European Union, 2020

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

The reuse policy of European Commission documents is implemented based on Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC-BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is allowed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated.

For any use or reproduction of elements that are not owned by the European Union, permission may need to be sought directly from the respective rightholders.

Image credits:

Cover page: © De BlueOrange Studio 45405097, Source: shutterstok

Page 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 35, 37, 38, 40, 41 42: © Drawnalism
# Transformative change in the global post-2020 Biodiversity Framework

## Workshop report 23-25-26 June 2020

Written by Marco Fritz, Jorge Ventocilla, Karla E. Locher Krause, Heidi Wittmer, Ute Jacob, Didier Babin, Thomas Bobo, Nerea Aizpurua, Juliette Young, Marie Vandewalle and Allan Watt
TABLE OF CONTENTS

<table><tr><td>1</td><td>PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>WORKSHOP PREPARATION</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>EXPECTATIONS</td><td>6</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>ORGANISATION OF WORK</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>WORKSHOP OUTPUTS</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>7</td><td>WORKSHOP REPORT: DAY 1 - 23 JUNE (13.30-15.30 CEST): THE 'WHAT'</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>8</td><td>WORKSHOP REPORT: DAY 2 - 25 JUNE (10.00-12.30 AND 15.00-17.30 CEST): THE 'HOW'</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>8.1</td><td>Introduction</td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td>8.2</td><td>Report on breakout groups - session 1</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.1</td><td>Cities</td><td>17</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.2</td><td>Terrestrial and inland water ecosystems</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.3</td><td>Marine and coastal biodiversity</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.4</td><td>Sustainable production and consumption</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.5</td><td>Health and biodiversity</td><td>23</td></tr><tr><td>8.2.6</td><td>Climate change</td><td>24</td></tr><tr><td>8.3</td><td>Report on breakout groups - session 2</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.1</td><td>Implementation mechanisms (including NBSAPs)</td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.2</td><td>Further enabling conditions (actors and capabilities, learning approach, etc.)</td><td>27</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.3</td><td>Accountability and reporting</td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.4</td><td>Indicators and monitoring framework for transformative action</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.5</td><td>Capacity building and whole-of-society approach</td><td>31</td></tr><tr><td>8.3.6</td><td>Finance for implementation and involving the financial sector</td><td>33</td></tr><tr><td>9</td><td>WORKSHOP REPORT: DAY 3 - 26 JUNE</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>9.1</td><td>Welcome and introductions</td><td>35</td></tr><tr><td>9.2</td><td>After the workshop</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>ANNEX 1: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS</td><td></td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Workshop participant list</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td>ANNEX 2: AGENDA, INCLUDING DESCRIPTIONS OF THE BREAKOUT GROUPS</td><td></td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 1: Tuesday 23 June 13.30-15.30</td><td>52</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 2: Thursday 25 June</td><td>53</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 3: Friday 26 June 13.30-16.00</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>ANNEX 3: RESOURCES FROM THE WORKSHOP</td><td></td><td>55</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 1 Presentations</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 2 Presentations</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Day 3 Presentations</td><td>56</td></tr><tr><td>ANNEX 4: ORGANISERS OF THE WORKSHOP</td><td></td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>European Commission</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>DG Research and Innovation</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>DG Environment</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Eklipse</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework - EU Support</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Lead and technical facilitators of the workshop</td><td>58</td></tr></table>
# 1 PURPOSE OF THE WORKSHOP

Transformative change has been mentioned as a crucial precondition for bending the curve of biodiversity loss. However, understanding what transformative change could consist of and how the levers / leverage points stipulated in the **Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) global assessment** could be integrated into, and facilitated by, the post-2020 global biodiversity framework (GBF) has not been discussed in the necessary detail yet.

This workshop provided an opportunity to discuss options for embedding transformative change into the structure, targets and enabling tools of the post-2020 GBF, based on the zero draft proposed by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) secretariat, and its uptake on form, content and the associated enabling activities in the discussions at the open-ended working group (OEWG) (¹). The intention was to generate knowledge on how transformative change could be identified, discussed and integrated into the remaining work streams of the 24th meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA-24), the third meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-3) and the OEWG-3 towards the adoption of the post-2020 GBF.

# 2 WORKSHOP PREPARATION

The workshop was organised by the European Commission's Directorate-General (DG) Research and Innovation and DG Environment, together with the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union. They were supported by the EU-funded projects Eklipse, the science-policy mechanism on biodiversity, and Expertise France, supporting the Commission on the post-2020 biodiversity framework. The Commission requested that Eklipse prepare, facilitate and report on the workshop. To prepare the workshop participants, Eklipse made a request, through a call for expertise, for independent experts to summarise, in a **background report** (²), the principles and actions of transformative change relevant for biodiversity and how they could be taken up in the post-2020 GBF. Participants of the workshop were **consulted** (³) on their priorities for workshop discussions based on the background report.

Three keynote speakers were invited to present their views on how the concept of transformative change could be useful for biodiversity action. Background tables with text from the OEWG meeting were prepared to facilitate the discussions of the six breakout groups on integrating transformative change principles and actions into the targets of the post-2020 biodiversity framework, and of the six breakout groups on integrating those principles and actions into the post-2020 biodiversity implementation framework.

<footnote>(1) First and second meeting of the OEWGs on the post-2020 biodiversity framework convened by the CBD.</footnote>

<footnote>(2) Harriet Bulkeley, Marcel Kok, Jiska van Dijk, Tim Forsyth, Gabriella Nagy and Sebastian Villasante. (2020). Harnessing the Potential of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework. Report prepared by an Eklipse Expert Working Group. UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Wallingford, United Kingdom.</footnote>

<footnote>(3) An EKLIPSE Consultation Summary</footnote>
## 3 EXPECTATIONS

During the preparatory consultation, participants were asked about their expectations for the workshop. They hoped it would offer opportunities to:

* understand the term ‘transformative change’ and how it could be accommodated in the GBF;

* stimulate discussions on a common understanding of transformative change, provide clarity about the real implications of the term and ‘unpack’ it in specific actions;

* better understand how transformative change can be operationalised and built effectively into the GBF and move from a fairly abstract slogan to a real driver of meaningful action;

* better understand to what extent the targets and their implementation can be used to achieve transformative change and how they could be improved to facilitate it;

* suggest concrete steps and approaches capable of attracting the necessary attention and wide support in the long run;

* provide a basis for discussions on how to tackle transformative change for biodiversity;

* meet a diverse range of people working on transformative change in different contexts and better understand how they view possibilities for generating transformative change;

* exchange views and perspectives on (the need for) transformative change and thinking outside the box to get an overview on current discussions and incentives for implementation;

* learn about successful experiences of transformative change, including on implementation at the national level;

* discuss the extent to which it is feasible to introduce transformative change into the GBF and what aspects of transformative change should be addressed in other processes.

One respondent thought that the background report did not challenge the status quo (and the values), which would be the basis for real transformative change, and that therefore the discussions would potentially not go far enough. Another respondent felt that the background document was rather academic and not concrete enough to lead to implementable recommendations to the party-led post-2020 global biodiversity process.

Others felt that the preparation delivered a good basis for discussion during the workshop, through both the available document and the outcomes of the consultation, but considered the topic to remain challenging, due to its complexity and broad scope.
## 4 WORKSHOP PARTICIPATION

The Croatian Presidency invited participants from each EU Member State; the European Commission further invited participants from Europe and Central Asia, and also from Expertise France, from each of the 23 countries actively participating in the EU-funded project worldwide. Additionally, representatives from science, business and civil society organisations participated in Day 1 (on the concept of transformative change for biodiversity) and Day 3 (on conclusions from the discussions). Participation in Day 2 was restricted mainly to negotiators from CBD parties, with the Chatham House Rule in effect to allow open and frank discussions. A full list of workshop participants is provided (in Annex 1).

## 5 ORGANISATION OF WORK

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the planned hands-on, in-person workshop had to be postponed and its concept and technicalities reworked into a web-based workshop, which was spread over 3 days to allow participants in different time zones to participate. The agenda, including descriptions of the breakout groups, is provided (in Annex 2). On the first day keynote speakers were invited to present their views on how the concept of transformative change could be useful for biodiversity action, with panel discussions and chat-based collections of suggestions for discussions (⁴). The second day, introducing how the SBI and the SBSTTA could take account of transformative change, was almost entirely dedicated to small group discussions on targets and the enabling conditions for transformative change in the post-2020 GBF, offering opportunities to share views and experience and to learn from others. The third day started with subsequent feedback from discussions and continued with a series of panel discussions on the presented conclusive syntheses of the breakout groups, an outlook on how transformative change has been covered in the upcoming Fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (GBO-5), and the view of the CBD secretariat on the uptake of workshop results, conclusions, follow-up and opportunities to further deepen discussions on transformative change as presented in the workshop.

The workshop has been co-designed by the European Commission, the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union, supported by the EU-funded projects Eklipse and Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework - EU Support and FEAL (Annexe 4).

<footnote>(4) Through Covision software.</footnote>
# 6 WORKSHOP OUTPUTS

The goal of the workshop was to help negotiators prepare for further discussion and negotiation on how to translate the concept of transformative change within ongoing discussions on the post-2020 GBF. This document does not constitute an agreement on the different issues covered, but aims to present the range of views expressed by participants, as well as more concrete options for integrating transformative change into the GBF.

The following workshop report is based on (i) the background report on transformative change produced by the Eklipse expert working group; (ii) a summary of the results of the consultation on the background report in preparation for the workshop; (iii) a combination of summaries of presentations and discussions, and materials developed during the workshop. These constitute: input by participants through Covision, breakout group syntheses and presentations and panel discussion summaries, which have all been used to prepare the workshop report. In addition, this report presents visual depictions of the workshop that a drawnalist conceived in real time during the discussions.

Further resources can be found on the website for the workshop (see Annex 3): a short video detailing the highlights of the workshop; background tables summarising selected principles and actions of transformative change against targets and enabling factors in the post-2020 biodiversity framework, which were used to facilitate the breakout discussions; and all the presentations given during the workshop, including the recordings of Days 1, 2 and 3 of the workshop. This report was completed during the month following the workshop, and then made available for review by participants. The report will be submitted to the CBD secretariat, with the suggestion that it will be transferred into an information document for the upcoming SBSTTA-24 and SBI-3.

Further resources can be found on the [website for the workshop](#).
## 7 WORKSHOP REPORT:

### DAY 1 23 JUNE (13.30-15.30 CEST):

### the ‘what’

Despite commitments made under the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP-10) of the CBD by governments to take effective and urgent action to halt biodiversity loss and ensure resilient ecosystems by 2020, much still remains to be done. The post-2020 agenda needs to be ambitious yet achievable. Nothing short of transformative change is needed.

'Without Parties harnessing the transformative potential of the GBF as a whole it is likely that the stated ambition of the Parties to the Convention to enable widespread transformative change will not be realised and goals for conserving and sustainably using biodiversity will not be met', stressed the Ekklipse expert working group in its background report for this online workshop on transformative change in the post-2020 GBF. The challenge addressed by delegates from all regions of the world was that of how to embed transformative change within the global governance framework for biodiversity, seizing opportunities and galvanising governments and all of society into taking concrete action.

A number of ‘embedding principles’ could guide this work, acting as transformation levers by raising ambition, enabling new agents of change to engage and ‘ensuring that action for biodiversity also enables just and sustainable outcomes for society’.

The following summarises discussions and presentations on transformative change linked to and impacting on biodiversity policy and on the need for, and principles of, transformative change for biodiversity.

**Learning to live within planetary boundaries is not a luxury but an imperative.** This calls for transformative change underpinned by game-changing policy tools, research support and concrete action spearheaded by the EU's Green Deal and its Biodiversity Strategy for 2030. Other EU initiatives with the potential to support this include the circular economy, plastics and waste, farm-to-fork and research programmes, including the EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe, and its five missions, including climate change and life-support systems for nature. Horizon Europe will need to consider the main questions of this workshop on addressing transformative change for biodiversity in its first work programme for 2021-2022.
Participants had been given the chance to review the background report by Eklipse, entitled 'Moving towards transformative change for biodiversity: Harnessing the potential of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework'. A central focus of the workshop was therefore discussions, inspired by this report, on developing proposals to encourage transformative change in order to ultimately chart a clear post-2020 path to effective action that halts biodiversity loss and ensures resilient ecosystems. The objective was to better understand how transformative change relates to biodiversity and is reflected in the current GBF, and to collectively reflect on what is needed to trigger transformative change and how these ideas can be anchored in the post-2020 framework.

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

**Transformative change calls for a total rethink of our unsustainable production and consumption patterns.** COVID-19 has brought into focus the need to think more systematically about how to cope with system-wide risks in the future. Policy intervention has improved environmental conditions, but not fundamentally turned negative trends around; incremental change is not enough to meet biodiversity targets (for 2010, 2020 and even 2030) if transformative change cannot be secured. We are currently not living within the limits of the planet, as described in the seventh environmental action plan. We are further eroding, depleting and polluting its natural capital. Europe wants to 'lead by example' and 'fulfil its responsibility at the global level' as it approaches the COP-15, so the post-2020 dialogue matters.

We need to understand that biodiversity is not a side issue; it is 'foundational capital for any society with a healthy future'. It has to be mainstreamed across all systems, looking beyond a focus on protection of species and stopping biodiversity loss towards nature restoration paradigms. The coming decade will be a pivotal one. It is imperative to address driving economic forces, to invest in monitoring (through geospatial developments) and linking innovation to the implementation of wider 'nature-based' solutions, and the whole system of investment in a low-carbon society. 'Big goals like these need serious and transformative changes bending the curve of biodiversity loss possible through transformative
<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

change that addresses not only direct but also indirect drivers of unsustainable practices? The published global assessment and upcoming nexus assessment by the IPBES examine this question. The **nexus assessment** assesses the links between and among biodiversity, water, food and health in the context of climate change. The **global report** assesses aggregated knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and their links planetwide. The main message in the global assessment is that the 'fabric of life is deteriorating fast' with virtually all indicators on the global state of nature pointing downwards (e.g. 75 % of land area shows signs of alteration; 66 % of ocean area is experiencing cumulative impacts).

Concerning governance of transformative change, the global assessment recommends combining four approaches addressing indirect drivers in an integrative, inclusive, informed and adaptive manner. Such a combination ensures that transformation bridges sectors, includes all societal groups, is based on the best available evidence and learns and adjusts as it evolves. Ambitious goals are not enough. The gap between policy and implementation needs to be filled. Addressing indirect drivers 'places responsibility where it belongs' – on consumers, producers and governments. Finding the right policy mixes and instilling fundamental value changes in society are key to making sustainability (and biodiversity concerns) the norm and not exceptional. Transformative change could be embraced as part of the overarching **Sustainable Development Goals** (SDGs) encompassing human, environmental and animal concerns, emancipating the agenda from an 'anthropocentric to an ecocentric approach' through evolving relationships between animals and humans globally.
<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

There is an urgent need for change in order to safeguard biodiversity and to better translate scientific imperatives into useful action on the ground, which demands leadership, vision, motivation, resources and defined boundaries. The process governing such progress is that of moving from the 'sphere of intention and influence' towards the 'sphere of implementation' and, ultimately, towards the 'sphere of impact', where there are no specific route maps to follow. 'There's no great satnav in the sky to paradise'. 'The imperative of the GBF is not to provide a route map of the transformative actions that we need to address the challenges to lead transformative outcomes. It should provide a compass to keep us on the right track that send us in the right direction, a journey that would be travel by many people in different ways.'

**Six guiding principles** for transformative change are outlined in the Eklipse background report: address root causes, take multiple paths, expand the action arena, realise diverse co-benefits, design deliberative and inclusive processes and adopt proactive approaches to resistance.

The key idea is to think of the GBF not only in terms of goals and targets, but also of mechanisms to deliver on them. Priorities highlighted include implementation (are the national biodiversity strategy action plans (NBSAPs) sufficient to facilitate mainstreaming?), solid reporting and review, capacity development and financial aspects. Discussions are ongoing on governance and finance, and we can build on existing mechanisms to push the transformative change agenda further, including both direct and indirect drivers and new learning approaches in biodiversity, as well as reflecting deeper values in society on transformative change. Targets should reflect 'all-government' and 'all-society' approaches, be inclusive and address underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, not limiting responsibility to individual consumers. To achieve this, implementation and accountability are key. A global stocktake of promising pilot projects and successes could help in starting a 'ratcheting mechanism' to set off and gain momentum on the right trajectory.
<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

## Breakout and discussion

After a reinforcement of the concept of transformative change and the proposed framework of principles and actions linking transformative change and the GBF through various critical issues, a mini breakout session took place to establish the questions/themes for the subsequent panel discussion and the whole of the 3-day workshop.

Topics discussed by breakout participants included the following:

**The discussions of the post-2020 OEWG.** They applauded the OEWG co-chairs' proposal to look not only at goals, targets and measures but at all other measures of the framework, including actions at the local level that move governance paradigms in the right direction. Local and national actions seemed more doable, but the challenge lies in ratcheting these efforts up and properly implementing and comparing them globally. 'We're at a loss to negotiate at all levels, in an aggregate form.'

**The EU's Biodiversity Strategy.** They welcomed its level of ambition and its inclusion of a wider range of actors in the discussion, many of whom struggle to find common ground and terms. They found the language of transformation is indeed a challenge, forcing people to go 'outside their comfort zones' when speaking to sectors or industries they don't usually engage with. Communication problems also exist within organisations.

The 'compass visualisation' (a metaphor for the GBF's role in guiding transformative change) and greater emphasis on 'transformative governance' and its inclusion in the GBF were among the themes developed, alongside the roles of implementation mechanisms (indicators, accounting and reporting), capacity building and enabling conditions (learning, capabilities, different contributors, etc.), and better ways to involve the finance sector in GBF implementation through 'whole-of-society' approaches.
**The work of the OEWG-3 would need to capture transformative change**, based on the 'vision to live in harmony with nature', and covering direct and indirect drivers to reduce the threats to biodiversity. The GBF needs to provide tools and solutions to achieve the '2050 vision', including better implementation-support mechanisms, responsibility and transparency. Some critical success factors include the availability of resources, capacity building, technology transfer and cooperation, transparency (clear targets, planning and reporting) and social acceptability. The lexicon of 'change', its cyclical nature and the need for far-reaching guiding principles, greater transparency and inclusive science-based inputs could inform the 'recrafted framework' ahead of the COP-15.

**On the topic of governance, a good policy mix is paramount** to addressing indirect drivers of sustainability issues and the importance of an inclusive, integrated approach to establishing an 'emancipation agenda for actors whose interests are not being met. We need constant reflection, asking ourselves: Are we still on track? Are we forgetting anything or anyone?

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

**The idea of using the post-2020 GBF as a compass** to create transformative change was appreciated but the difficulty will be in operationalising it through common approaches. 'Do we lose track if everyone takes their own route; how can we get a global view?' It needs to be stressed that there is no one form of transformative change: 'we're likely to get multiple contested versions' with multiple pathways to outcomes from different actors. One way of addressing them instead of calling for integrated approaches per se could be to go for simple 'driver approaches': for example, the fact that the production of unsustainable market products directly creates unsustainable consumption patterns.
On the question of operationalisation, there is room for parallel mainstreaming of direct and indirect drivers. The OEWG discussions help to shape different pathways towards better outcomes for people and biodiversity. This could mean embedding all six principles of transformative change into the post-2020 framework and incorporating whole value chains, not just individual contributors to biodiversity loss/damage.

The OEWG could, within its discussions on the GBF, 'set the table for transformative change', that is, present the elements that could enable transformative change to be implemented. On how to capture transformative aspects in current discussions beyond the limits of negotiation-focused targets, 'we can plan as much as possible, but if it is not easy to accept and implement, it's only a piece of paper'. Encouraged by discussions at the workshop, we should widen engagement beyond governments to stakeholders in other sectors, who need to understand what transformative change really is.

We need ambitious but smart targets to achieve transformative change. 'Look closely at the targets themselves: are they ambitious enough?' Would these targets alone deliver transformative change? Transformative change will be reflected in many ways in the GBF, but have we covered transformative change in the way the text appears?

<figure><img src="image_10.png" /></figure>
## 8 WORKSHOP REPORT:

### DAY 2 25 JUNE (10.00-12.30 AND 15.00-17.30 CEST):

### the ‘how’

#### 8.1 INTRODUCTION

Transformative change is widely accepted as essential for tackling the crises of biodiversity loss and climate change. Day 2 consisted of two sessions working in small groups in a participatory way to identify concrete, hands-on recommendations for incorporating transformative change into the structure of the post-2020 GBF.

The first round of breakout groups focused on how the principles of transformative change could be embedded in the GBF in five critical issue areas identified in the background document – sustainable production and consumption, climate change, cities, terrestrial ecosystems and inland waters, and coastal and marine areas. A group on health was added due to the increasing importance of the topic. In preparation for the workshop, potential actions suggested in the background document were prioritised for discussion by delegates. For each group, these actions, the related targets and the suggestions by the OEWG potentially contributing towards a transformative agenda for biodiversity, had been compiled in a table. Participants were asked how transformative change could be further embedded using the principles set out in the background document and to identify the elements of the GBF that have the potential to lead to transformative change and how those elements could be refined to be even more transformative.

The second round of breakout groups focused on implementation, which the background document identified as critically important for advancing transformative change. Ambitious targets and advancing action in critical issues are only one option for encouraging transformative change. NBSAPs as implementation mechanisms, national reporting and traditional tools for capacity building have been part of international environmental agreements for a long time; would accountability, indicators and a monitoring framework for transformative action, involving the financial sector, a whole-of-society approach and a new learning approach, bring added value? In the second set of breakout groups, participants were asked how the different enabling conditions and different implementation mechanisms could advance transformative change.

The following list provides links to introductory presentations on transformative change linked to critical issues, implementation and enabling conditions for transformative change, and the potential use of the results of the breakout group discussions for the SBI and the SBSTTA.
## 8.2 REPORT ON BREAKOUT GROUPS – SESSION 1

### 8.2.1 Cities

**The challenge.** Cities face multiple, competing sustainability challenges – from addressing poverty and social inequality, to tackling immediate risks from natural disasters and longer-term threats of climate change, alongside concerns about air pollution. But aside from being home to significant direct and indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, cities might hold the key to a transformative change.

**Rationale of the breakout group**

Cities are recognised in the background document as a key **action arena**, as adequate and effective protection for nature and biodiversity in cities is closely linked to addressing key development challenges such as shelter, food, sanitation and economic development. All three actions prioritised by participants in the consultation preparing the workshop were discussed: (1) acknowledge, safeguard and restore biodiversity within cities and their surrounding areas, including by promoting urban pro-biodiversity experimentation; (2) enable local governments to work towards reconnecting citizens with nature; (3) develop monitoring and reporting frameworks nationally and internationally that enable local authorities to assess the benefits of biodiversity action and nature-based solutions (NBS) for achieving SDGs and climate goals. These actions were also discussed in relation to Targets 1, 10, 13 and 18 of the GBF.

*For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.*

**Considerations addressed by the participants**

The participants agreed on the relevance of the actions suggested as cities have huge potential for implementing transformative change because of the enormous diversity of people and ideas living in them. But at present the role of local governments is unclear in the GBF and we must clarify who is doing what and who is enabling whom, given that it varies from country to country. Indeed, a focus on *local* government may not be universally appropriate; rather, the *relevant* level of government, based on national contexts, should be enabled.

The breakout group discussed how specific targets might be modified to enable transformative change: reduce emphasis on spatial planning/regulation or at least make sure it is accompanied by recognition of other governance mechanisms such as experimentation, partnerships, etc. in Target 1, 'Retain and restore ... ecosystems, increasing ... the ... area under ... spatial planning' and involve large non-governmental organisations and others that work in development and with informal dwellers (i.e. expand action arenas) in Target 18, 'Promote education and ... knowledge relating to biodiversity'. Furthermore, cities have extensive experience with mainstreaming, from which other levels of government might learn. Making cities part of the implementation of the entire post-2020 GBF could be ensured by also including their involvement in the enabling conditions and supporting it through implementation-support measures.
Regarding how reconnection with nature should take place, the breakout group suggested that identifying how and what connections had been lost would be useful in formulating initiatives (education, awareness or experience) that could actually lead to reconnection.

## Conclusions and recommendations

A major recommendation was to enable experimentation and participatory planning. From this lessons can be learnt, incorporated in for example, NBSAPs and local government initiatives, and scaled up. Participants highlighted that opportunities for transformative change could best be encouraged by different sectors collaborating and forming partnerships, thus recognising the interlinked systems within cities and with their immediate surroundings (energy supply, building environment, transport, food provision and local recreation). A second key recommendation was to ensure the building of appropriate capacity for enabling transformative change within cities. This could be facilitated through the development of respective curricula for architects, urbanists and other private sector actors. Furthermore, the entirety of the public should have the opportunity to be involved in developing transformative change. The breakout group concluded that clarifying the nature and benefits of NBS, and ecosystem services generally, could provide citizens, government, business, etc. with a shared understanding of NBS and an increased awareness of potential trade-offs. The breakout group therefore recommended motivating cities to take action and ensure reporting and accountability, considering their biodiversity impact and footprint within and beyond their territories. This could further be encouraged by explicitly mentioning and giving a political mandate to cities in the targets and/or indicators for production and consumption.

## 8.2.2 Terrestrial and inland water ecosystems

**The challenge.** Terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, and the services they provide, host the bulk of human activities, from food production to recreation, human settlements and nature conservation. This invariably leads to conflict in the management objectives that different interest groups might have for these ecosystems, and thus the challenge (and opportunity) of bringing these sectors together to ensure sustainable management. As a consequence, the topics discussed in this group related to incentives and subsidies, land-use change, management of ecosystems, spatial planning, indigenous and local communities, restoration, agriculture, protected areas and ecosystem resilience.

### Rationale of the breakout group

Terrestrial and inland water ecosystems are critical **arenas for action**, according to the background document, in addressing the *direct drivers* of biodiversity loss. Effective land-use planning policies and instruments are essential to prevent further land conversion and to ensure that existing conservation areas are maintained and/or expanded. Following the results of the online consultation held prior to the workshop, this group discussed the following actions (and their related targets).

* 'Reduce (economic) incentives that are harmful to biodiversity and their habitats, including subsidies'. Linked to Target 12 (reform incentives) and Target 14 (reform economic sectors).
* 'Rethink conservation areas and protected area management to further increase the involvement of local communities, to increase connectivity in the wider landscape, restore areas highly relevant for ecosystem functions and services supply as well as fair access to them'. Linked to Target 1 (retain and restore freshwater, marine and terrestrial ecosystems), Target 7 (sustainable use of wild species) and Target 18 (education and the generation, sharing and use of knowledge relating to biodiversity).

* 'Develop targets which demonstrate how biodiversity action in land use planning and protected areas provide benefits regarding the provision of regulating and cultural services'. Linked to Target 2 (protect sites of particular importance for biodiversity), Target 8 (conserve and enhance the sustainable use of biodiversity in agricultural and other managed ecosystems) and Target 9 (enhance nature-based solutions).

For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.

## Considerations addressed by the participants

Overall there was agreement that agricultural subsidies need to be reformed so as to benefit biodiversity protection, but that the analysis of conflicts should go beyond agriculture (the example of land appropriation as an incentive harmful for biodiversity was given), to identify conflicts, resolve trade-offs and identify opportunities.

The group discussed furthermore the importance of building from pilot projects on alternative governance models for Protected Areas (PAs), which should include inclusive and participatory processes, as well as considerations of sustainable use in and around PAs. Some participants pointed out that schemes such as payment for ecosystem services require mapping and evaluation (which are not always available) and tangible (economic) benefits for local communities.

## Conclusions and recommendations

Following discussions of the targets relevant for this breakout group, participants highlighted conclusions and recommendations in three main sections, as follows.

* Reduce economic incentives harmful to biodiversity (not only subsidies).

> In line with addressing the root causes, parties should identify which sectoral policy instruments (including incentive systems) are harmful for biodiversity (including energy, agriculture, marine), identify conflicts, resolve trade-offs and identify opportunities (such as with climate policy).

> When expanding the action arena, incentives can also be used to stimulate the use/restoration of abandoned land, as a land-use stimulus to prevent losses.

* Involve local communities in management of conservation areas.

> When expanding the action arena, there is a need for targets to be clear and include other sectors, not just conservation.
> When realising diverse co-benefits, allow experimentation to learn and build from pilot projects on alternative governance models that include the local communities and ensure they benefit from conservation efforts.

* Considerations about ecosystems and their services.

> Referring to Target 9: ecosystem services and functions should not be limited to water; they need to be more closely linked to climate co-benefits in relation to mitigation and adaptation.

> Referring to Target 9: natural systems for waste water treatment could be 'cheap but effective' as a start, considering that waste water treatment is lacking in many places in the world.

> Referring to Target 9: the concept of NBS is interesting compared to the concept of ecosystem-based adaptation, because it also deals with climate change mitigation and the synergies between mitigation and adaptation. However, there are still big knowledge gaps about how NBS will fulfil the function they have been thought to have.

### 8.2.3 Marine and coastal biodiversity

**The challenge.** Other than its ecological importance, more than 1 billion people use marine resources as their main source of protein; marine ecosystems mitigate climate change, facilitate trade and create jobs. Some of the topics discussed in this group are the (over)exploitation of resources and pollution, local coastal communities, jobs and livelihoods, food security, economic prosperity, good quality of life and area-based conservation measures.

**Rationale of the breakout group**

Coastal and marine waters play a fundamental role in the global climate system and in supporting communities, jobs and livelihoods, food security, human health, biodiversity, economic prosperity and good quality of life. The importance of coastal and marine biodiversity has been explicitly recognised and it is essential that governments adopt a holistic, integrated approach that aligns with the systemic nature of the ocean to minimise negative and unintended outcomes if transformative change is to be achieved. The following actions to encourage transformative change were discussed: targets/ elements of the GBF zero draft that could be linked to the actions of transformative change, which include Target 12, 'Reform incentives, eliminating the subsidies that are most harmful for biodiversity, ensuring by 2030 that incentives, including public and private economic and regulatory incentives, are either positive or neutral for biodiversity', and Target 13, 'Integrate biodiversity values into national and local planning, development processes, poverty reduction strategies and accounts, ensuring by 2030 that biodiversity values are mainstreamed across all sectors and that biodiversity-inclusive strategic environmental assessments and environmental impact assessments are comprehensively applied'.

For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.
## Considerations addressed by the participants

Participants put forward 12 main considerations mandatory for successfully implementing transformative change in Targets 12 and 18 for coastal and marine areas: (1) rope in governments and finance sectors in order to achieve **marine biodiversity mainstreaming** through collaborative and market-driven actions (Target 12); (2) **investing locally and regionally** (with the potential to scale up globally) to support and complement knowledge development and transfer (Target 18); (3) working **strategically and collectively** to ensure workable alternatives to unsustainable products; (4) including **protection measures** that involve/engage business and financial actors; (5) fostering **learning** (not necessarily only in the framework described in action 2); (6) partnering with stakeholders to address the production, marketing and use of plastics (or other harmful materials); (7) the practical **involvement of local** coastal societies, which may help in the implementation of Target 18; (8) **developing curricula** of ocean literacy for children from a young age and at all levels of education; (9) the **inclusion of indigenous knowledge**, which should include lessons on ways of life in harmony with biodiversity (marine and coastal); (10) ensuring **mainstreaming** of marine biodiversity into all maritime sectors, discussing ways to avert further biodiversity loss and agreeing measures within their remit to mitigate harmful effects on marine ecosystems; (11) **evaluating** the contribution of non-state actors to the framework in a detailed process to measure their impact; and (12) strengthening **data collection** (economic, ecological, local knowledge, social, etc.), including capacity building and assessment of data (transdisciplinary and open access). Embedding these considerations in Targets 12, 13 and 18 will improve their transformative potential.

## Conclusions and recommendations

There is considerable transformative potential in reviewing and revising existing policy instruments and more efficiently designing fishing subsidies in order to move towards more sustainable practices, for example by directly subsidising the income of those in need rather than harmful production processes. Such alternative policies will help protect the people that have less power. Focus should be on sustainable use of marine biodiversity and conservation alike, while maintaining employment.

### 8.2.4 Sustainable production and consumption

**The challenge.** Identifying and reducing the negative impacts of value chains on biodiversity is a key transformative change. Such a change will need to include governments, the private sector and consumers. In addition, it will require more reflection on incentives, patterns of production and consumption within specific economic sectors – especially those which involve primary production, such as agriculture, forestry and mineral extraction. Given their fundamental role in shaping our economies and our societies, this topic lies at the heart of ensuring transformative change across many issue areas.

#### Rationale of the breakout group

The breakout group aimed at encouraging discussion around value chains (including their identification and the reduction of their harmful impacts on biodiversity) and around indirect impacts of
consumption on biodiversity, and reflection on building alternative visions of a good quality of life. All three actions were discussed during the breakout group discussion and were all considered of very high importance in terms of their potential for transformative change.

*For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.*

## Considerations addressed by the participants

In order to be truly transformative, participants of the breakout group stressed that shifting the way value is created and distributed in the economy had the power to fundamentally shift nature-society relations. A direct suggestion was to replace the current measure of gross domestic product with a 'nature-fair' measurement.

A number of issues were raised concerning the potential transformation of value chains, including the need to address the issues surrounding value chains with the financial sector rather than just identifying problems with current ones. In addition, participants highlighted the need to transform, or identify alternative value chains – with genuine and deliberative engagement of stakeholders across all levels, not just governments. The potential of innovative solutions such as technologies and services was also highlighted as a novel way of reducing the negative impact throughout the value chain. Inventives (e.g. eco-labels) and frameworks (e.g. ISO 14000) for industry to produce biodiversity-friendly products and for consumers to measure transformation could be an important step.

Increasing awareness of waste and packaging, from producers to consumers will be key in terms of transformative change but will require mutual understanding, awareness raising between the production and consumption actors and their responsibilities in terms of biodiversity. Making food consumption more sustainable with measures such as reduction of food waste and promotion of dietary changes will be required, thereby reducing the footprint of food systems.

Finally, implementation of flexible monitoring mechanisms to acknowledge the process and steps in a given transformative direction will be needed. This will entail a better understanding of different perspectives of transformative change, and a need to broaden and co-produce notions of success beyond a sole focus on biodiversity, to include social justice.

## Conclusions and recommendations

The main conclusion from the breakout group in terms of the potential for transformative change was the need for a genuine rethink of the ways in which value is created and distributed in the economy. This requires the establishment of stable forms of value creation that include investment in sustainable and just local economies. The involvement of all relevant actors will be necessary, from governments to business, the finance sector and consumers. Such a transformative change would promote genuine empowerment that builds on community values, but also sparks deliberation related to the implications of the different values that biodiversity has for different stakeholders.
## 8.2.5 Health and biodiversity

This group considered the links between ecosystems and health (after COVID-19), recognising that adequate and secure access to ecosystem services, in particular those related to the provision of water, are particularly important as they provide services that are essential for human well-being.

### Rationale of the breakout group

Biodiversity is a key environmental determinant of human health, for several reasons: (a) biodiversity supports food security, dietary health and livelihood sustainability; (b) biodiversity provides important resources for medical research; (c) biodiversity provides important resources for traditional and modern medicine; (d) biodiversity has social, cultural and spiritual importance within communities; (e) conservation of biodiversity is essential for climate change adaptation; and (f) intact ecosystems can reduce disaster risks and support relief and recovery efforts. Regarding the role of biodiversity for healthy food production and nutrition, the decline of agrobiodiversity and the rapid erosion of genetic diversity in production systems through monocropping of uniform crop varieties or animal breeds have led to the reduced provision of regulating and supporting ecosystem services, creating negative feedback loops (World Health Organization and Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 2015). Health should therefore be presented as a cross-cutting issue, by mainstreaming biodiversity- health linkages in national biodiversity strategies and action plans and national health strategies (CBD/COP/DEC/14/4 – Health and biodiversity) to improve understanding of the ‘one health’ (º) and ‘planetary health’ approaches. This would help to better integrate biodiversity into the different frameworks/actions, addressing the interlinkages between human health and biodiversity (e.g. in the case of COVID-19) (linked to Targets 5, 18 and 15).

For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.

### Considerations addressed by the participants

Participants of the breakout group suggested that the momentum of the COVID-19 crisis should help push the importance of better recognition and appropriate communication of the fact that a healthy and biodiverse planet is interlinked with human health. There is a need for integrated solutions and approaches to human diseases including, among other measures, policy, data and finance. This is linked to Target 18, on sharing knowledge, as it will be essential to bring together information and data relating to, for example, species distributions, climate change, trade patterns, clinical data and genomic data. Implementation of the GBF and the EU biodiversity strategy must be a central element of the EU's recovery plan. Any green transition post COVID-19 should reconcile economic development with nature protection, including effectively regulating wildlife trade (acknowledging that biodiversity loss, health issues and animal trade are interlinked).

<footnote>(4) ‘One health’ is an approach to designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes.</footnote>
Public health must go beyond tackling diseases: it has been evident that green infrastructure in cities has had a positive impact on the health and well-being of people who suffered because of the lockdown. Easy access to nature is very important for people and may help to avoid the spread of infections. Financial support for linking biodiversity and health should be increased and redirected via different channels, including development banks, funds and bilateral support. We also need to build political support in developing countries to address these issues with different partners. Links between the NBSAPs and national health plans are crucial, but NBSAPs and national nutrition plans should also be harmonised and linked together for the sake of mainstreaming biodiversity in agriculture/agricultural plans (for the EU, the common agricultural policy will be important here, for financial support of genetic diversity and its link to nutrition support for healthy food production).

Participants put forward the idea that health should be also reflected in Target 13, on mainstreaming (mentioning specifically national health strategies and action plans). Target 15, on resource mobilisation, was also seen as relevant, in that better integration of public health policies and biodiversity can potentially unlock significant additional finances.

### Conclusions and recommendations

It is necessary to improve our understanding (achieve more clarity) on the ‘one health’ approach (as opposed to the ‘planetary health’ and the ‘health in whole-policies approach’) within different sectors, including in science. The one health approach would help achieve acknowledgment of the interlinkages of biodiversity loss and human health and well-being. There is room for improvement in mainstreaming health and collaborations in biodiversity and health sectors, and links with the SDGs.

The World Health Organization-CBD joint work programme on biodiversity and health intends to deliver its action plan at the SBSTTA-24, which should be acknowledged in the GBF. One option would be to add a self-standing target on health. Including health in several targets was, on the other hand, considered to dilute the strength of the cross-cutting character of health.

## 8.2.6 Climate change

**The challenge.** Including the climate-biodiversity interdependencies, trade-offs such as carbon off-sets, and the use of nature-based solutions. The breakout group looked at the types of action needed in order to ensure that transformative action for climate change does not come at the expense of biodiversity and vice versa.

### Rationale of the breakout group

Climate change has been recognised as the third most important direct driver of biodiversity loss globally (IPBES, 2019). At the same time, biodiversity plays a crucial role in sequestering and storing carbon that decreases the negative effects of climate change that are currently being observed in unprecedented scope and scale. Identifying and recognising the close interlinkage between biodiversity loss and climate change is key to developing climate solutions that avoid unintended adverse effects (such as biodiversity loss by e.g.
monospecies reforestation). Target 6 and three actions to enhance transformative changes were discussed: (1) better **aligning the climate change and biodiversity agendas**; (2) avoiding unwanted outcomes from climate change actions by creating a stronger link between biodiversity-ecosystem health and global environmental change; (3) coherent monitoring and reporting in a whole-of-government approach.

For more detail on the prioritised actions and the discussions within OEWG-2 on targets that could be linked to these actions, see the background table.

## Considerations addressed by the participants

The participants agreed on the relevance of the actions suggested in the background report to successfully implement transformative change. The issue of how to extend the mandate of the CBD to cover climate change was raised and participants highlighted that countries have committed to nationally determined contributions in the context of the Paris Agreement while at the same time committing to CBD goals and frameworks. Key elements discussed for enhancing transformative change included expanding the search for synergies beyond the climate agenda to health issues and global (environmental) change more broadly (expanding action arenas and taking multiple paths), as participants agreed that biodiversity conservation could contribute considerably to climate mitigation and many governments along with the general public are often not aware of this. With regard to actions 2 and 3, the importance of quantifying either damages to biodiversity or co-benefits of restoration or other biodiversity-friendly approaches such as NBS was highlighted. On the other hand it was suggested that it is necessary to move on from this quantification paradigm, as in many cases a qualitative check on potential damage to biodiversity, such as biodiversity proofing of certain climate actions impacting ecosystems, might be more effective. There was also discussion of expanding Target 9, on NBS, which is currently limited to water provisioning, by better highlighting co-benefits of NBS in different action arenas. Regarding joint monitoring and reporting, it was suggested that national targets should be established and reviewed and indicators aligned with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) as well as the SDG agenda, and co-benefits and interactions should be included more explicitly with climate change in the different targets. This would make reporting easier for countries and ensure that there would be sufficient material for thematic reporting. There was discussion on whether or not this should be explicitly addressed in NBSAPs and countries required to update these. But as countries are very different and some have only recently updated their NBSAPs there was agreement that allowing multiple paths would be more promising.

## Conclusions and recommendations

Two potentially complementary options for transformative change were identified: (1) joining forces by drafting, highlighting and communicating the common ground shared by climate and biodiversity agendas including indicative measures (e.g. by thematic reporting on links between biodiversity and climate change implementation) and (2) directly including synergies with the climate change agenda in the GBF targets, highlighting the crucial role that the biodiversity agenda (e.g. restoration) could deliver, in terms of reducing carbon – but also showing the opportunities in the NBS for biodiversity and other agendas (not only water, as currently set out in Target 9). Moving beyond quantification was recognised to hold a transformative potential: one option would be to have a qualitative ‘no-harm-to-biodiversity check’, for example in parties’ climate change policies.
## 8.3 REPORT ON BREAKOUT GROUPS – SESSION 2

### 8.3.1 Implementation mechanisms (including NBSAPs)

**The challenge.** As there is no one-size-fits-all approach to implementing transformative change, this session's focus was on the challenges and new mechanisms required to facilitate biodiversity mainstreaming and action at different levels (including NBSAPs).

**Rationale of the breakout group**

NBSAPs integrate the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity into relevant sectoral or cross-sectoral plans, programmes and policies. They should be further developed to enable a whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach to developing strategies for transformative change for biodiversity.

NBSAPs will need to be aligned with long-term climate planning and nationally determined contributions, with SDG implementation and with restoration plans in the UN Convention to Combat Desertification. Being able to identify trade-offs and deal with the opportunities nature offers for solving societal challenges requires coherent approaches. The post-2020 framework offers an opportunity to make progress on this, together with other multilateral processes, and make domestic action more effective and efficient.

*For more detail on implementation mechanisms as proposed in the background document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these mechanisms, see the background table.*

**Considerations addressed by the participants**

Participants discussed what transformative change means in terms of implementation, targets and indicators, and how it could be monitored and how it is different from the ambitious targets discussed in the GBF. NBSAPs are a good instrument for starting transformative change but actual implementation needs to be enhanced, firstly through effective biodiversity mainstreaming across all sectors and secondly through more transparency and accountability mechanisms. Participants discussed proposals for a new design for NBSAPs, such as that they could consist of two parts: first, a 'core' focused on the traditional remit of biodiversity action; second, a series of additional elements with strategies & actions developed across all levels of government to address the indirect drivers of biodiversity and to mainstream biodiversity action. Participants pointed out however that agreeing and applying such a new framework design could be very time-consuming. Enhancing our efforts in local capacity building, technological innovation and financial support should however start now.
## Conclusions and recommendations

The following recommendations emerged from the discussions. (1) To better ensure transformative change, **business sector engagement** and **civil society support** are **key**, alongside **government work**. There is a need for more awareness about the biodiversity crisis to more effectively involve the whole of government and of society. **The UN Summit on Biodiversity and action agenda will hopefully stimulate this engagement.** (2) The existing guidance on NBSAPs encourages consideration of both direct and indirect drivers. Some parties are already applying this guidance, for example in considering access to family planning in their NBSAPs, which is linked with one of the indirect drivers of biodiversity loss as identified by IPBES. (3) There is certainly a way **to introduce a more communicative factor into the NBSAPs that will define the most important targets and be comparable across parties.** Even if attempts at standardising NBSAPs have not been successful so far, and some parties do not yet have an adopted NBSAP, it would be interesting to explore a format for national commitments that would be less burdensome to produce, which would allow for implementation to start soon after adoption of the GBF. This could be linked to NBSAPs or provide a basis for a later NBSAP update.

### 8.3.2 Further enabling conditions (actors and capabilities, learning approach, etc.)

**The challenge.** The question of how the GBF itself can be implemented is important from the angle of transformative change. A critical consideration is therefore whether parties are prepared to develop the whole-of-society approach further and actively create space for voluntary commitments from non-state actors (and subnational and local authorities) to be recognised as a legitimate part of a transformative agenda and hence to include such action as one of the implementation mechanisms of the GBF (building on the CBD action agenda for nature and people).

## Rationale of the breakout group

Enabling conditions in the zero draft recognise the need for alignment with other multilateral environmental agreements and the participation of local communities and indigenous people, and the importance of inclusive governance and of securing adequate political will and recognition at the highest levels of government. In addition, implementation is crucially tied to the provision of resources.

For more detail on enabling conditions as proposed in the background document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these conditions, see the background table.

## Considerations addressed by the participants

The group discussed how **transformative** the current enabling conditions in the GBF are. Participants generally agreed on the relevance of the steps suggested in the background report to successfully implement further enabling conditions to make the GBF more transformative. Yet some felt that the way these steps were formulated was too general, with nothing new in the enabling conditions, and thus the steps needed to be made more concrete.
To achieve success, some participants felt that there is a need for a common goal and understanding of what transformative change is, recognising that these issues are linked to cultural factors and political will, and for truly binding commitments. Some participants felt that biodiversity mainstreaming is an enabling condition, not only at the level of dedicated targets.

The need to work towards the integration of knowledge between and among different processes was also stated, and participants were reminded that the IPBES global assessment provides a series of 'options' for transformative change (Chapter 6) where different instruments are evaluated, and actors to be involved identified, etc.

Some participants suggested that it would be good to revisit this document when further developing the post-2020 GBF.

### Conclusions and recommendations

Participants acknowledged the need to consider synergies with other multilateral environmental agreements, actors and processes (including the IPBES and SDGs), to identify their expertise and engage them in the GBF as a whole. Overall there was a consensus on the need for more cooperation, coordination and agreement on what needs to be done. When developing the frameworks, it is important to consider vested interests, frameworks for accountability/transparency, aspects of human psychology (perceived gains and losses) that may be relevant (learning, inclusiveness, etc.) and the need to also take into consideration the regional level (as a supranational level) to act as a further catalyst between the national and global levels.

### 8.3.3 Accountability and reporting

Based on the challenges identified in the background report, this session focused on analysing and discussing the need for a transformative accountability and reporting mechanism relevant in whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches.

#### Rationale of the breakout group

Accountability and reporting have been identified as critical elements for harnessing the transformative potential of the GBF and ensuring its progress. Increasing accountability together with transparency and broader public participation in decision-making would help to promote key goals such as equitable conservation governance, sustainable use of biodiversity and benefit sharing (as stipulated in OEWG-2). Currently, NBSAPs and national reporting are the main mechanisms for national implementation. However, better alignment between the post-2020 framework, ongoing national policy processes and international agreements would be needed. This could form the basis for regular review processes and global stocktaking that tracks progress towards global goals and targets.

For more detail on accountability and reporting as proposed in the background document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these measures, see the background table.
## Considerations addressed by the participants

Participants agreed on the relevance of the steps suggested in the background report to successfully implement accountability and reporting to make the GBF more transformative. The critical elements discussed to enhance transformative change were the following.

(1) A transparent reporting framework, which includes targets and indicators for the global level. Participants also discussed that it is not necessary to link accountability to NBSAPs, as many of these have been recently updated and probably will not be updated again in the near future, but that the accountability framework should leave it open to parties to decide how to obtain input and how to implement it (allowing for multiple pathways). The reporting could also be pragmatic and should allow for some flexibility and provide opportunities for parties to learn from each other. Nevertheless, sooner or later, NBSAPs would have to be linked to the new GBF.

(2) Increasing accountability by linking national biodiversity goals to other national goals and strategies (aligning with other action arenas, capitalising on co-benefits, etc.).

(3) Making mainstreaming 'official' requires strong political will as well as the capacity in all ministries to integrate biodiversity. A whole-of-society approach might help to build this will.

(4) There should be some reinforcement mechanism within the CBD to deal with incidents of countries not reporting (currently there is none). Participants considered that a process of taking stock of a group of targets (rather than all of them) early on would allow parties to learn from each other and ratchet up commitments. They also suggested linking reporting to UNFCCC stocktaking as a good, feasible option for encouraging transformative change.

## Conclusions and recommendations

Incorporating accountability and a clear reporting framework (with targets and indicators) in the GBF could help move transformative change forward. Suggestions also highlighted the need for a combination of accountability mechanisms designed for the different actors involved (in a whole-of-society-approach or whole-of-government approach). Strong political will was noted as one of the crucial elements that need to be addressed to mainstream biodiversity. This political will is a challenging point that may be addressed by integrating a whole-of-society approach. Regarding national reporting frameworks, these should leave some flexibility and the option of learning from different initiatives. Also, current and particularly the next NBSAPs could have considerable transformative potential if they were connected with the GBF. This close link between NBSAPs and the GBF would contribute to improving the periodic global stocktake by providing insights about progress, allowing for the identification of issues that require further attention and joint learning, as well as creating political will to double efforts (a 'ratcheting mechanism').
### 8.3.4 Indicators and monitoring framework for transformative action

**The challenge.** Many targets and indicators hold transformative potential. This session focused on analysing and discussing how to ensure that the transformative potential of indicators and the monitoring framework could lead to real transformative change (aligning targets and indicators with other processes, making indicators relevant for all actors, transparent monitoring, inclusive governance, etc.).

**Rationale of the breakout group**

It is crucial to recognise that the indicators against which progress in meeting targets will be measured are as important as the targets themselves in ensuring transformative change. This must be embedded in the GBF, as these indicators signal the specific actions, mechanisms, tools and outcomes needed to make progress. The participants discussed the transformative potential of the current indicators and monitoring mechanisms in the GBF. They considered specific challenges and suggestions presented to them by the expert working group and broadened the discussion, offering additional suggestions and recommendations.

For more detail on indicators and monitoring frameworks as proposed in the background document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these measures, see the background table.

**Considerations addressed by the participants**

Participants considered that current monitoring approaches and indicators were not transformative at all and that there is a need to monitor the main (direct and indirect) drivers instead of only biodiversity components (e.g. species). Specific indicators should look at the outcomes or impacts of GBF actions. Participants discussed the possibilities of alignment with indicators for the SDGs and other multilateral environmental agreements but suggested that the set of indicators of the SDGs are not sufficiently transformative. It was necessary to have more time for discussion of this topic (because current indicators and monitoring systems are not transformative). Unfortunately, at CBD negotiations it seems that there is never enough time to negotiate indicators. Parties consistently mention the urgency of aligning global indicators with indicators at national levels, but this is not happening and their formulation remains not at all transformative. There was concern that everyone wants to promote/impose their own sets of indicators. There needs to be a better focus on the purpose of the monitoring. Do we want to compare countries or help them? How can we develop indicators to help countries to stay on track (referring to the notion of the GBF as a compass for transformative change)? Progress in using new technologies will help with better monitoring of certain aspects of the environment. However, monitoring support for transformative change will require information on, for example, justice and equity or incentives, for which satellite mapping, for example, is not adequate – further approaches would be needed there. We also need to pay special attention to the role of local governments and the private sector in monitoring.
## Conclusions and recommendations

Participants recommended the following.

(1) Monitoring and indicators should be developed for the context of a 'ratcheting mechanism' with a periodic stocktake, which might help to raise ambition over time and support transformative change.

(2) Common methodologies are needed for monitoring and indicators, including thresholds, to allow for implementation of actual transformation, particularly for direct and indirect drivers.

(3) Social indicators should integrate ecosystem indicators into the framework of socioecological systems.

(4) Indicators should reflect the role of all actors, sectors and drivers involved, including non-state actors. Likewise, it is imperative to explicitly include other actors at the national level (in NBSAPs).

(5) The scope of monitoring and indicators should be widened to fully embed transformative change by properly addressing indirect drivers and including other sectors. Although there are indicators developed within other agendas, like the SDGs, it is necessary to respect CBD boundaries within the monitoring of the GBF

(6) It is essential to develop capacities (skills and resources across the relevant authorities and levels) at the national level to monitor the main drivers of biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation, and it is important to develop good governance indicators for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity.

### 8.3.5 Capacity building and whole-of-society approach

**The challenge.** Advancing transformative change requires generating capacity for transformative action. This session analysed and discussed the new kinds of capacity building that are needed to support different forms of action and actors to ensure transformative change, linking to the long-term strategic framework for capacity building.

#### Rationale of the breakout group

Advancing transformative change requires us to stop building capacity to undertake traditional, incremental policymaking and start generating capacity for transformative action. The matters discussed by the group were: why is the current capacity building not transformative (as concluded by the experts in the background document)? What kinds of capacity – to do what – are to be built for whom? How can we build a framework that emphasises sharing and promoting best practices and lessons learnt and regularly monitoring capacity-building efforts to maximise learning and adapt as necessary?
For more detail on capacity building and the whole-of-society approach as proposed in the back-
ground document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these
measures, see **the background table**.

Considerations addressed by the participants

Capacities have already been built, but fail to reach out to as many actors as possible. There is a lack of communication between sectors. Communication activities need to be multisectoral and interdis- ciplinary. To be successful, capacity building needs to be continuous, have a long-term plan and be operational. However, continuity is jeopardised by a lack of financial resources, which only allows for short-term activities mainly focusing on direct drivers, missing transformative elements. Capacity building should be customised and co-created (avoiding technical language and terms based on different knowledge) for and across all levels (all sectors and all organisations should have their own capacity building) to facilitate integration and dialogue. This should apply to all different CBD actions/ activities with very concrete goals across the GBF.

Coordination for programming and planning between the local and national levels is missing. New priorities are needed to raise ownership and enable integrated action. Finding national consensus across ministries and sectors and facilitating views from the bottom up should be improved. Capacity building should prioritise translating the national policy and priorities of the biodiversity framework to local governments and the private sector. Sharing and promoting the application of best practices and lessons learnt to improve future interventions, along with national consultation on them, is needed. A cooperative approach between ministries responsible for nature protection and biodiversity and, for example, economy ministries, combined with an increasing respect for biodiversity issues and accept- ance of international progress and efforts on biodiversity, would produce a new strategic approach.

The participants wanted capacity-building initiatives to be monitored and adapted (by governments/actors). One way of raising awareness among the general public and across all sectors would be to work actively with journalists who understand the topic of nature, biodiversity protection and its importance for society. Finally, the role of youth and women as key actors in capacity building to mainstream biodiversity was highlighted.

Conclusions and recommendations

Participants asked for continuous capacity building (and monitoring) that is not just a matter of funding but based on a continuous and long-term planning process. The existing capacity-building framework is lacking in operationalisation (what, when and for whom). Continuity in and of itself would already be transformative. Capacity building should be implemented for different sectors and adapted to their languages, include actors responsible for indirect drivers and take a whole-of-society approach. An important point raised was to include youth and women, two groups indispensable for mainstreaming biodiversity.
### 8.3.6 Finance for implementation and involving the financial sector

**The challenge.** There is a clear need for the evolution of global financial and economic systems towards a globally sustainable economy. This session focused on analysing and discussing the best options for ensuring that biodiversity concerns are integrated into mainstreaming financing decisions in different sectors and levels.

**Rationale of the breakout group**

Any transformative change will require implementation of measures, and effective implementation will require mobilisation of resources. While producers and consumers, as well as governments at the national and local level and international coordination, have a clear responsibility, financial institutions with responsibilities for financing and regulation will need to play a key role in the implementation of transformative changes. Although the main principles around financing are highlighted in the GBF (i.e. the need to mainstream biodiversity, reorient negative subsidies, etc.), effective implementation is missing. The aim of the breakout group discussions was to take this reflection further and complement the current elements in the GBF with suggestions that had the potential for transformative change.

*For more detail on finance for implementation and involving the financial sector as proposed in the background document, and discussions by OEWG-2 on elements in the GBF that could be linked to these measures, see the background table.*

**Considerations addressed by the participants**

When asked how transformative the current financing or economic mechanisms in the GBF were, participants noted that while the main principles were apparent (the need to mainstream biodiversity, reorient negative subsidies, etc.), most economic considerations remained to be developed and effective implementation steps were missing. It is still unclear how the international cooperation side of the financial mechanism can be transformative. The targets on sustainable consumption and production and Target 14 (and also Target 15) were considered to be rather general but, if implemented properly, to have the potential to be transformative, including for the financial and economic sectors. However, goals and targets on resource mobilisation will be needed and mobilising the private sector to achieve effective resource mobilisation will be important. Participants also noted the need for specific financing strategies/agendas/guidelines, such as through the EU sustainable finance framework.

While participants acknowledged that governments, producers and consumers had a joint responsibility, a critical aspect in discussion with regard to transformative change was the suggestion of engaging more with business and finance sectors (as sector champions) by mobilising them through national activities, such as through greater political coordination between relevant ministries; promoting public recognition for those that perform better; fiscal tax incentives; providing companies with a clearly defined pathway to 'future-proof growth' by specifying how much and how quickly they need to reduce biodiversity loss or impact. Transformative financial mechanisms should, however, have clear guidelines and training for effective implementation and solid monitoring, reporting and transparency mechanisms, allowing for the impact of the interventions to be demonstrated.
Mainstreaming will be critical for transformative change, especially the mainstreaming of biodiversity into societal values and actions through a mix of tools, including awareness raising and the integration of biodiversity into national accounting. However, such mainstreaming needs to be adapted to different national situations. In many countries, redirecting money from one destination to the other would not be enough. Transformative mainstreaming may also mean ensuring the availability of more resources, more capacity and more technology, especially in developing countries.

## Conclusions and recommendations

The coordination of multilateral financial institutions to finance a **global, just, green recovery** from COVID-19 – in other words a **'Marshall plan' for biodiversity** on a global scale – could be a powerful way of implementing transformative change measures in terms of financial mechanisms. Such a transformative change will require a stronger framework for structural and financial changes, and genuine engagement with business and finance sectors (as sector champions) by mobilising them through positive national activities. Mainstreaming and implementation will be key and necessary for genuine transformative change – but this will require taking into account the needs and circumstances of countries, especially Least Developed Countries.
## 9 WORKSHOP REPORT:

### DAY 3 26 JUNE

On Day 3 the 'transformative change gems' outcomes generated during the different breakout discussions (12 in total) on the previous day were presented in two rounds, each followed by a breakout session and a panel discussion with experts providing feedback and commenting on the results of the breakout group discussions. A short progress update on the GBO-5, and how it accommodates transformative change, was also presented.

## 9.1 WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

*The EU's new biodiversity strategy is probably the most ambitious the world has seen*

The session was welcomed by the Director for Natural Capital at the European Commission. He reflected on the fact that sustainable development has been lingering on the political agenda for decades and that the profound change needed is not a new concept. Society has moved in the right direction but not yet in a transformative way. That needs to change and the links between transformative change and biodiversity need to be underpinned by science. Biodiversity is gaining attention at the upper levels and catching up with climate change. Political awareness is following this trend. The EU's Green Deal is its political response to growing public attention on global sustainability issues. It calls for systemic transition (in terms of food, transport, energy, zero-emission targets, etc.) and also economic and social adjustments ('leaving no one behind'). The EU's new biodiversity strategy matches the Commission's desire to lead by example. It duly quantifies the main biodiversity drivers, and instils an element of hope and positive messaging into a 'nature restoration agenda'.

<figure><img src="image_11.png" /></figure>
Transformative change and pandemic realities such as the world is currently experiencing with CO-VID-19 are embedded in the approach because such a virus arises from mismanagement of nature and wildlife, and shows that sudden change is possible and even desirable, linking nature and economic recovery. Finally, 'Nature-based solutions are not just for the climate!'

## Progress summary on the Fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook

The GBO-5 will be published in mid September ahead of the UN Summit on Biodiversity. The report's structure includes a policy summary and links to the SDGs and climate change agenda. The focus is on transitions to a better future and pathways to reach the 2050 vision through theme-based transformative change and lessons learnt from the implementation of the strategic plan for biodiversity (2011–2020). Thematic transitions incorporate **eight common, cross-cutting socioeconomic drivers** (society, population, economy, values, etc.) and are further captured in terms of land use, sustainable agriculture, food, fisheries, cities, fresh water, climate change and health – a new topic in light of COVID-19 realities. Emphasis is on multiple solutions (inspired by the nature futures framework), and requirements for multiscale approaches.

## Highlights from breakout groups in session 1 and panel discussion

The highlights (or ‘gems’) of the six breakout groups in session 1, ‘How far is the current post-2020 GBF discussion on targets taking account of transformative change?’ were presented and brought to a panel discussion.

## Specifying the ‘what, where, why and how’ of transformative change – the ‘gems’, from cities to climate change

Post-2020 negotiations can start with **cities** and small steps aimed at rehumanising and renaturing urban areas and their surroundings, to reduce their impact or ‘biodiversity footprint’ and to re-establish a connection to nature for a large part of the population. COVID-19 showed how quickly communities can spring into action and how nature can take back a city ‘without all the noise and hustle and bustle’. On the issue of **terrestrial and inland water ecosystems**, having countries identify and set up reform agendas for sectoral policy instruments that harm or conflict with biodiversity goals could allow biodiversity to gain considerable momentum. Involving local communities in the management of conservation areas and experimenting with and learning about alternative governance models favouring biodiversity and conservation are key. Here, there is no need for agreed worldwide consensus, but for parties to build on their own experience, which harkens back to Day 1’s ‘compass versus roadmap’ paradigm.

Further momentum could be built in **marine protection** and restoration, regarding the need to evaluate how current support mechanisms affect less well-off groups, especially in fisheries and aquaculture, and linking subsidies to biodiversity conservations and to poverty-reduction strategies (i.e. in the SDGs). This improves the chances of transformative change actually happening and targets subsidies at those in need. **Sustainable consumption and production** was a recurring theme; transformation
might be achieved with calls for governments to identify value chains where biodiversity loss is hap-
pening and to set targets jointly with stakeholders in different parts of the value chain to tackle it.
Concrete ideas included a biodiversity-friendly product label, food-system footprint measurements
(e.g. target: low-meat diet), a nature-fair metric instead of gross domestic product, and other targets,
such as a common standard, like ISO14001.

Joining forces increases transformative potential by working on the link between biodiversity and **health** (e.g. post-COVID-19 thinking and promoting a one health agenda) and by operating in synergy with **climate change** and SDG implementation. Transformative change can best be encouraged by encouraging action from the 'whole of government, economy, and society' and by assigning appropriate roles and responsibilities to each of these actors. Questions remain on how best to engage additional actors in the GBF, where to cooperate and what enabling conditions are needed. This led neatly into the issues discussed in the second session.

The summary slides were shared to facilitate the reflection and discussion in the breakout groups
(slides available here).

Delegates broke into randomly assigned small groups to reflect on these results in light of the work-
shop's goals. The issues raised in the first breakout session were summarised and presented to the
panel made up of Eklipse experts, members of the SBI and its co-chair, and EU representatives.

**Feedback from the breakout session** highlighted that mainstreaming may work better at the global level than the local, national and regional levels, especially when different actors like the agriculture and mining sectors are brought to the table. It was also felt that the role of 'values' in transformative change was not sufficiently developed.

<figure><img src="image_12.png" /></figure>
A headline breakout session theme was that of **moving from concepts to action** with realistic and coherent goals for the next decade by embracing policymakers and other stakeholders. The issue of **winners and losers** in potential struggles needs to be addressed, and delegates called for clarity on the distinction between the GBF as a framework for all and the CBD as a mechanism for delivery and accountability. The idea of a nature-fair index to replace current wealth and economic indices was appreciated, as too was the importance of mainstreaming biodiversity in all sectors but taking care that it does not 'lose itself' in the crowd of agendas. It was felt that a distinct voice is still needed.

## Panel discussion on the outcomes of breakout session 1

Clarity is needed on what a 'framework for all' means and how it can be realised. Relevant focus must be on behaviour change, not just government regulation, because 'at the end of the day it is about convincing people to do something'. Ideas on how to have difficult conversations with people who don't share the same ideas - i.e. industries not yet on the bandwagon - are welcome.

The private sector is on board with climate change and starting to explore wider questions about nature, so there is scope to insert biodiversity into that conversation. 'Power is the elephant in the room' and 'can be disruptive'. Panellists reiterated the importance of indirect drivers and of values and stressed the role of achieving sustainable production and consumption by covering the whole value chain in order to reach biodiversity goals. Reflections from this workshop will be integrated into the EU's Horizon Europe research and innovation programme, where topics are currently being established.

<figure><img src="image_13.png" /></figure>
## Highlights from breakout groups in session 2 and panel discussion

The highlights ('gems') of the six breakout groups in session 2, 'How can we better capture transformative change in the structure of the post-2020 GBF?' were presented, discussed in small groups and brought to a panel discussion.

A summary of transformative suggestions from the second session on Day 2 was presented as food for thought. Topics covered different aspects of implementation, with the theme of whole-of-society and whole-of-government engagement running through all groups. NBSAPs are used by most countries but face challenges such as how to include indirect drivers of biodiversity loss, with different degrees of success. Some are quite participatory already, but opening up multiple paths was considered important. Leaving countries (e.g. via nationally determined contributions) more leeway on what to prioritise and how to link different actions and actors with the CBD tasks was a favoured position: 'The CBD's role then is to encourage, set the framework and leave space for countries to act'.

Biodiversity mainstreaming can be considered not only a target but, once underway, also an enabling condition. This could be started by identifying relevant stakeholders' key roles and capacities to then work towards integrating different processes, the GBF and SDGs, while specifying how these can all be aligned with national and international policy goals and action plans (i.e. for climate, food, sustainable production and consumption, etc.). 'Political will is needed for truly binding commitments! And a whole-of-society approach can help build this political will.'

It was also argued that accountability and reporting are in and of themselves transformative instruments for strengthening implementation options through multiple pathways, clear endpoints and different options to get there. 'Pick a group of targets early on to learn and ratchet up, focus on them, learn from other countries and possibly link them to UNFCCC stocktaking, and thus allow both agendas to reinforce each other.' This point was also linked to indicators and monitoring of the main direct and indirect drivers, 'not only biodiversity and species'. Other topics discussed included capacity building, where continuity and focusing on building capacity for a whole-of-society approach were identified as potentially transformative. Finally, from the discussion on finance for implementation and how to better involve the finance sector, some concrete ideas arose, such as the need to focus on a 'green and just system'; the need to use the COVID-19 experience to raise awareness of biodiversity as well, ideally turning recovery investment into a 'Marshall plan for planetary recovery'; coordinating multilateral financial institutions and avoiding investments likely to harm biodiversity; ideas for mainstreaming biodiversity in societal values and action; and taking the needs and circumstances of different countries into account, helping them build capacities. 'Transformation will come from implementation!' This statement resonated in the session, along with 'encourage champions' and 'all elements of the GBF are necessary and complementary if transformative change for biodiversity is to be enabled'.
<figure><img src="image_14.png" /></figure>

Feedback from the second session of discussion groups

Meanwhile, during the second short breakout session an existential question confronted the group: 'Is transformative change the beginning or the end?' Does it happen because we plan it? The timeframe and political cycle were discussed, with the suggestion that a firm long-term position is needed to deliver transformative change, regardless of who is in government.

Some contention was noted between those who think biodiversity should pursue its own agenda and those who think it should work alongside other agendas like climate change. For one delegate, talking about 'synergies' and 'implementation' (to address direct and indirect drivers) among knowledgeable delegates is a bit like preaching to the converted, though one area – 'population dynamics' – may be so far outside the framework's scope that it undermines the focus. The subject of 'outcome-oriented goals' and well-defined ambitions (i.e. to safeguard species, ensure a healthy ecosystem, promote sustainable use, etc.) demand nothing less than transformative change, with a note of caution that expectations need to be realistic to avoid major implementation gaps. 'Smart, measurable targets with strong implementation mechanisms are crucial.'
<figure><img src="image_15.png" /></figure>

## Final panel reflections – concrete next steps to invigorate the post-2020 negotiations

The panellists provided some final keynotes, as follows.

### ‘Transformative engagement’

The ‘language of solutions’ seems to migrate from one biodiversity strategy to the next ‘because implementation is not on the same level as trying to articulate targets’. In addition, if not everyone is engaged, targets become that much harder to achieve, so ‘don’t leave it all to the government!’ We need transformative ways to engage as well. We need the capacity and means (resources, finance and mechanisms) to implement change commensurate with ambitions. ‘Ambitious targets need equivalent means of implementation.’

### ‘Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do’ (Goethe)

'Transformation from implementation' also means leaving no one behind and doing no harm. We need systemic change – top-down and bottom-up – that puts protecting and restoring ecosystems at the centre of all actions. By moving away from 'narrow paradigms', transformative change experiences a 'big leap' that will be needed in the coming years.

### ‘Transformative change to be central to the whole governing framework’

Transformative change and implementation go hand in hand – the next step should bring other players to the table for wider engagement. Panellists agreed and stressed the need for transformative change to be central to the whole governing framework, from the theory of change, targets and
indicators to implementation in the broadest sense. Ambitious change like this and new approaches carry inherent risks. 'Some won't work, so we have to be prepared for that.' But that should not stop everyone from thinking big and being adventurous. 'It's better to try and fail than not try at all!'

## Conclusions and recommendations

After 3 days, the workshop and its final outcomes were wrapped up by the CBD and the European Commission representatives.

## 'Biodiversity needs to come out of the policy closet'

The essence of discussions and some final remarks on the 'three days of impressions' were presented, which delivered a clearer understanding of transformative change, and how to trigger and integrate it into post-2020 thinking. We have witnessed progress in agreements that we cannot continue using one and a half planets' worth of natural resources, that transformative change demands 'whole-of-society approaches and multiple pathways' that engage actors with different views but following a clear compass for what is needed and where to go.

## So, what comes next?

Representatives from different regions were encouraged to take the messages home in preparation for upcoming CBD meetings. The organisers thanked all participants and announced that they would be gathering feedback and providing documents, discussions and materials in due course.

<figure><img src="image_16.png" /></figure>
## 9.2 AFTER THE WORKSHOP

### Follow-up

This workshop report is intended to inform discussions during the upcoming meetings on further developing the post-2020 GBF: SBSTTA-24, SBI-3 and OEWG-3. It is hoped that the report will provide some inspiration on the role of transformative change for the CBD's continuing work towards the next COP. And, beyond decisions on establishing the next GBF, during its implementation in the next 10 years questions on how to accommodate transformative change in biodiversity policy and governance will certainly continue, for which looking back at discussions held during this workshop might yield useful results.

Furthermore, the research needs flagged during the workshop will inform the preparation of the European Commission's new framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon Europe, of its investments in understanding and enabling transformative change. The outcomes of this workshop might also be useful for the preparation of the upcoming IPBES reports on interlinkages between biodiversity, water, food and health in the context of climate change (the 'nexus assessment') and of the underlying causes of biodiversity loss, determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 vision for biodiversity (the 'transformative change assessment').

In terms of outputs, this workshop report, together with the background document and the consultation summary, will be submitted to the SBSTTA-24 and SBI-3 for consideration. A related side event is planned for delegates; Expertise France is working on a four-page summary of the workshop in order to provide information on transformative change at the SBSTTA, SBI and beyond. The materials produced for and based on this workshop will remain accessible for further use.

### Stocktaking and lessons learnt – how far did we get?

The workshop participants engaged in translating the concept of transformative change into principles and actions relevant for biodiversity. A second step was to link them to the post-2020 global framework and its discussions on structure, targets and enabling conditions, as well as the linkages to other multilateral environmental agreements, and empowerment of agents for transformative change at the relevant levels. Options were discussed on how the post-2020 GBF might potentially enable or accelerate transformative change positive for biodiversity.

Discussions during this workshop showed that there are various ways to integrate transformative change into the GBF. Plenty of possibilities were discussed for the targets, enabling factors and implementation of the GBF.

### The GBF has considerable potential to encourage transformative change for biodiversity if it is integrated throughout

The workshop discussion confirmed that while ambitious targets are necessary they are clearly not sufficient to 'bend the curve'. Targets should also indicate **who** is expected to achieve them and **how**.
A whole-of-government and a whole-of-society approach could spark far more action than in the past. At least as important is including transformative change in the other elements of the GBF, particularly the parts on implementation.

Ideas with strong transformative potential discussed at the workshop include: letting countries define 'national contributions' to allow for multiple pathways; requiring countries 'to specify clear roles for different stakeholders in their specific country setting' as this could turn the process of mainstreaming into an enabling condition; accountability could focus on those indicators with potential for learning and for 'ratcheting up', such as indicators on direct and indirect drivers or on co-benefits; continuous capacity building, for a whole-of-society approach can turn into a strong catalyst for transformative change; and, finally, making sure investment, starting with COVID-19 recovery plans, does not further harm biodiversity but contributes to its recovery.

This non-exhaustive list of ideas also shows that the different efforts to encourage transformative change can bolster each other; experimenting with different options and creating learning and exchange opportunities can go a long way in turning the GBF into a compass - i.e. requiring countries to take action to achieve targets without prescribing how to do so. Similarly, linking to other agendas has the potential to focus on synergies and co-benefits instead of accepting trade-offs, to reduce effort and to increase impact. This does not mean we do not need a global biodiversity agenda, but can be pursued as part of this agenda.

## Addressing synergies and trade-offs between economic, social, political and environmental problems and inequities

Targets and actions of previous frameworks and agendas tend to tackle threatening processes separately and are therefore often not appropriately scaled to account for synergies and trade-offs between economic, social, political and environmental sectors. Governance of transformation, as a combination of integrative, informative, inclusive and adaptive governance, reveals key challenges such as balancing societal inequities, but also new ways to overcome them. This extends the range of measures that can be used to improve social and environmental/biodiversity outcomes, and more equitably balances different stakeholders' objectives locally, nationally and globally, which will facilitate transformative change. To translate visions into transformative changes, pathways toward transformative change need to be grounded in both social and climate justice, equity and inclusion. This will require and allow for social and environmental goals to be taken at least as seriously as economic objectives.
What next?

These first considerations could be taken further when progressing with the monitoring and indicator
framework of the GBF, and deciding how to enable it to accommodate and foster transformative
change.

Addressing all this was a complex, challenging exercise, and the time available at the workshop, under COVID-19 conditions, was very much insufficient to discuss the multiple dimensions of transformative change in the GBF in the necessary detail to elaborate options for its content, structure and ambition. Further to the workshop, the background document itself, and the results of the consultation on the background document, offer material for delegates of the SBSTTA, the SBI and the OEWG to use to inform further discussions on the role of transformative change and its principles and actions when setting recommendations for the GBF towards the CBD COP-15.
## ANNEX 1:

### List of participants

Note that not all participants were present at all sessions. Day 2 was restricted to 80 participants. The affiliation of the participants has not been checked and re-confirmed after the workshop.

### WORKSHOP PARTICIPANT LIST

<table><thead><tr><td>SURNAME</td><td>GIVEN NAME</td><td>ORGANISATION</td><td>COUNTRY</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Abenius</td><td>Johan</td><td>Swedish Environmental Protection Agency</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Adam</td><td>Nora</td><td>UN University Institute for Integrated Management of Material Fluxes and of Resources</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Aizpurua</td><td>Nerea</td><td>European Commission - DG Research and Innovation</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Alegre</td><td>Monica</td><td>Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO)</td><td>Mexico</td></tr><tr><td>Amos</td><td>Charlotte</td><td>Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA)</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Appelgren</td><td>Linn</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Arguedas</td><td>Eugenia</td><td>Ministerio de Ambiente y Energía</td><td>Costa Rica</td></tr><tr><td>Arroyo Schnell</td><td>Alberto</td><td>International Union for Conservation of Nature</td><td>EU</td></tr><tr><td>Ash</td><td>Neville</td><td>UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre (UNEP-WCMC)</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Atula</td><td>Roosa</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Finland</td></tr><tr><td>Babin</td><td>Didier</td><td>Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework - EU Support</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Baerlocher</td><td>Norbert</td><td>Federal Office for the Environment (FOEN)</td><td>Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td>Ballian</td><td>Estelle</td><td>Mediator and expert in interface between science and policy on environmental issues.</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Barudanovic</td><td>Senka</td><td>Faculty of Science, University of Sarajevo'</td><td>Bosnia and Herzegovina</td></tr><tr><td>Bas</td><td>Dursun</td><td>Regional Environmental Center Turkey</td><td>Turkey</td></tr><tr><td>Batakovic</td><td>Milena</td><td>Nature and Environmental Protection Agency</td><td>Montenegro</td></tr><tr><td>Bell</td><td>John</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Benítez</td><td>Hesiquio</td><td>CONABIO and SBSTTA (Chair)</td><td>Mexico</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table><tr><td>Bermudez</td><td>Laura</td><td>Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible</td><td>Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>Bigler</td><td>Sophie</td><td>FOEN</td><td>Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td>Bobo</td><td>Thomas</td><td>Expertise France</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Borg</td><td>Duncan</td><td>Environment and Resources Authority</td><td>Malta</td></tr><tr><td>Brojac</td><td>Jan</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Bulkeley</td><td>Harriet</td><td>Durham University</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Chambers</td><td>Josie</td><td>Wageningen University</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Chouraki</td><td>Elisabeth</td><td>Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework - EU Support</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Conesa Alcolea</td><td>Ivan</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Corzo</td><td>German</td><td>Humboldt Institute</td><td>Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>Cruz Angón</td><td>Andrea</td><td>CONABIO</td><td>Mexico</td></tr><tr><td>Cunha</td><td>Fernanda</td><td>Instituto da Conservação da Natureza e das Florestas (ICNF) / Ministro do Ambiente e da Ação Climática</td><td>Portugal</td></tr><tr><td>Danskin.</td><td>Karl</td><td>IT Workshop developer. COVISION. USA Todd Erickson. IT workshop developer. Co-creative Consulting. USA</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Debruyne</td><td>Catherine</td><td>Service public de Wallonie</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>del Rio Mispireta</td><td>Maria Luisa</td><td>Ministry of Environment</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>Delgado Rosa</td><td>Humberto</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Drabicka</td><td>Katarzyna</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Eggermont</td><td>Hilde</td><td>Belgian Biodiversity Platform</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Eliska</td><td>Rolfova</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Czech Republic</td></tr><tr><td>Enfedaque</td><td>Josefina</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Erhard</td><td>Markus</td><td>EEA</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Fardoux</td><td>Adèle</td><td>Ministry for the Ecological and Inclusive Transition</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Forsgren</td><td>Anders</td><td>Boliden Mineral AB</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Forsyth</td><td>Tim</td><td>London School of Economics and Political Science</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Freitas</td><td>Tiago</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Fritz</td><td>Marco</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Gabay</td><td>Monica</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development - Secretariat of Environmental Policy on Natural Resources</td><td>Argentina</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Galante</td><td>Luis Miguel</td><td>ICNF</td><td>Portugal</td></tr><tr><td>Gaugitsch</td><td>Helmut</td><td>Umweltbundesamt (Environment Agency Austria)</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Goethals</td><td>Peter</td><td>Ghent University</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Gofaux</td><td>Robin</td><td>Co-focal point CBD</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Gomez Garcia-Reyes</td><td>Cristina</td><td>Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Research on Biological Resources</td><td>Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>Gono</td><td>Semiadi</td><td>Indonesian Institute of Sciences</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Gracia</td><td>Santiago</td><td>Ministry for the Ecological Transition and the Demographic Challenge</td><td>Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Gureva</td><td>Anna</td><td>Environment and Resources Authority</td><td>Malta</td></tr><tr><td>Harrison</td><td>Jerry</td><td>UNEP-WCMC</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Hendriks</td><td>Rob J. J.</td><td>Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Hertenweg</td><td>Kelly</td><td>Federal Public Service for Environment</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Herwinda</td><td>Ersa</td><td>Ministry of Planning</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Hirsch</td><td>Tim</td><td>Global Biodiversity Information Facility</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Hoffmann</td><td>Caroline</td><td>Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Huynink</td><td>Matt</td><td>Ministry of Agriculture, Nature and Food Quality</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Jacob</td><td>Ute</td><td>Eklipse / Helmholtz-Institut für Funktionelle Marine Biodiversität</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Josefsson</td><td>Melanie</td><td>Swedish Environmental Protection Agency</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Jung</td><td>Martin</td><td>International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Kabera</td><td>Emmanuel</td><td>Rwanda Environment Management Authority</td><td>Rwanda</td></tr><tr><td>Karchava</td><td>Teona</td><td>Ministry of Environmental Protection and Agriculture</td><td>Georgia</td></tr><tr><td>Kim</td><td>Elizabeth</td><td>Government of Canada / Support for OEWG Post-2020 Co-Chairs</td><td>Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Kobaslic</td><td>Ana</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Energy</td><td>Croatia</td></tr><tr><td>Kok</td><td>Marcel</td><td>PBL</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Konstantinou</td><td>Zoi</td><td>European Commission - DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Kujundzic</td><td>Kristina</td><td>GIZ-ORF BDU Open Regional Fund for South-East Europe - Implementation of Biodiversity Agreements'</td><td>Serbia</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Kvist</td><td>Kristian</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Food</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Langerock</td><td>Stephanie</td><td>Federal Public Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Leclere</td><td>David</td><td>IIASA</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Ljustina</td><td>Masa</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Energy</td><td>Croatia</td></tr><tr><td>Locher-Krause</td><td>Karla E.</td><td>Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research -UFZ / Eklipse Facilitation team</td><td>Germany/Chile</td></tr><tr><td>Lung</td><td>Tobias</td><td>EEA</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Lupi</td><td>Love</td><td>Forestify AS</td><td>Norway</td></tr><tr><td>Madbouhi</td><td>Mostafa</td><td>Ministry of Energy, Mines and Environment - Department of Environment</td><td>Morocco</td></tr><tr><td>Mangalagiu</td><td>Diana</td><td>University of Oxford</td><td>United Kingdom / France</td></tr><tr><td>Martin del Real</td><td>Ines</td><td>Eklipse</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Melchert</td><td>Luciana</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Brazil</td><td>Brazil</td></tr><tr><td>Molegraaf</td><td>Tirza</td><td>Association of Dutch regional authorities</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Mukherjee</td><td>Nibedita</td><td>DEFRA</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Murillo</td><td>Jorge</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td><td>Colombia</td></tr><tr><td>Nagy</td><td>Gabriella</td><td>CEEweb for Biodiversity</td><td>Hungary</td></tr><tr><td>Nikraszewicz</td><td>Kasia</td><td>DEFRA</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Nopiansyah</td><td>Fifin</td><td>Directorate of Biodiversity Conservation, Ministry of Environment and Forests</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Nurinsiyah</td><td>Ayu Savitri</td><td>Research Centre for Biology, Indonesian Institute of Sciences</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Obersteiner</td><td>Michael</td><td>IIASA</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Ogwal</td><td>Francis</td><td>National Environment Management Authority, OEWG Post-2020 Co-Chairs</td><td>Uganda</td></tr><tr><td>Otsus</td><td>Merit</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Estonia</td></tr><tr><td>Perianin</td><td>Laurence</td><td>Ministry for an Ecological and Solidary Transition</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Pertierra</td><td>Juan-Pablo</td><td>European Commission - DG Environment</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Petersen</td><td>Barbara</td><td>Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Pitta</td><td>Eva</td><td>Department of Environment, Ministry of Agriculture, Rural Development and Environment</td><td>Cyprus</td></tr><tr><td>Pottier</td><td>Caroline</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Psaila</td><td>Aggeliki</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Energy</td><td>Greece</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Purnamaningtyas</td><td>Nining Ngudi</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Forestry</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Quico</td><td>Vanessa</td><td>ICNF</td><td>Portugal</td></tr><tr><td>Qwathekana</td><td>Malta</td><td>Department of Forestry, Fisheries and Environment</td><td>South Africa</td></tr><tr><td>Raeisaenen</td><td>Sointu</td><td>European Parliament</td><td>Finland</td></tr><tr><td>Rahajoe</td><td>Joeni</td><td>Indonesian Institute of Sciences</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Rankovic</td><td>Aleksandar</td><td>Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Rebut</td><td>Elise</td><td>Co-focal point CBD</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Ridha</td><td>Mardhiah</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Rivera Mendoza</td><td>Hugo</td><td>Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework - EU Support</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Rosales Benites de Franco</td><td>Marina</td><td>Servicio Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas por el Estado - Ministerio del Ambiente</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>Rusch</td><td>Graciela</td><td>Norwegian Institute for Nature Research</td><td>Norway</td></tr><tr><td>Sörqvist</td><td>Charlotta</td><td>Ministry of the Environment, SBT chair</td><td>Sweden</td></tr><tr><td>Salzberg</td><td>Joaquin</td><td>Ministry of Foreign Affairs</td><td>Argentina</td></tr><tr><td>Schoumacher</td><td>Cindy</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Seinen</td><td>Anne Theo</td><td>European Commission - DG Environment</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Shestakov</td><td>Alexander</td><td>UN / CBD secretariat</td><td>Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Simonaityte</td><td>Kristina</td><td>Ministry of Environment</td><td>Lithuania</td></tr><tr><td>Smaranda</td><td>Samad John</td><td>Ministry of Environment, Waters and Forests</td><td>Romania</td></tr><tr><td>Solis</td><td>Roxana</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>Stokland</td><td>Hakon</td><td>Norwegian Institute for Nature Research</td><td>Norway</td></tr><tr><td>Stott</td><td>Andrew</td><td>DEFRA</td><td>United Kingdom</td></tr><tr><td>Susanti</td><td>Ruliyana</td><td>Indonesian Institute of Sciences</td><td>Indonesia</td></tr><tr><td>Takehara</td><td>Mari</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Japan</td></tr><tr><td>Teller</td><td>Anne</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Torre</td><td>Jean-Paul</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Trakhtenbrot</td><td>Anna</td><td>Ministry of Environmental Protection</td><td>Israel</td></tr><tr><td>Tulkens</td><td>Philippe</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Turnhout</td><td>Esther</td><td>Wageningen University</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>Uhel</td><td>Ronan</td><td>EEA</td><td>EU</td></tr><tr><td>Ulku Skinner</td><td>Elif</td><td>DEFRA</td><td>Denmark</td></tr><tr><td>Uros</td><td>Jelena</td><td>Ministry of Environment and Energy</td><td>Croatia</td></tr></table>
<table><tr><td>Vaher</td><td>Liina</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Estonia</td></tr><tr><td>Vallejo</td><td>Noelia</td><td>Ministry for Ecological Transition and Demographic Challenge</td><td>Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Valverde</td><td>Mariano</td><td>Ministerio del Ambiente</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>van Dijk</td><td>Jiska</td><td>Norwegian Institute for Nature Research</td><td>Norway</td></tr><tr><td>van Havre</td><td>Basile</td><td>OEWG Post-2020 Co-Chair</td><td>Canada</td></tr><tr><td>Vandewalle</td><td>Marie</td><td>Eklipse</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Vanstappen</td><td>Nils</td><td>Federal Public Service Health</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Vasquez</td><td>Lucy</td><td>Instituto Nacional de Salud</td><td>Peru</td></tr><tr><td>Ventocilla</td><td>Jorge</td><td>Eklipse - Belgian Biodiversity Platform</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Verhaeghe</td><td>Margaux</td><td>EU</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Viestova</td><td>Eva</td><td>Ministry of Environment</td><td>Slovakia</td></tr><tr><td>Villasante</td><td>Sebastian</td><td>University of Santiago de Compostela</td><td>Spain</td></tr><tr><td>Visconti</td><td>Piero</td><td>International Institute for Applied System Analyses</td><td>Austria</td></tr><tr><td>Visseren-Hamakers</td><td>Ingrid</td><td>Radboud University</td><td>Netherlands</td></tr><tr><td>von Weissenberg</td><td>Marina</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Finland</td></tr><tr><td>Wagner</td><td>Niklaus</td><td>FOEN</td><td>Switzerland</td></tr><tr><td>Wanda</td><td>Nowakowska</td><td>Permanent Representation of the Republic of Poland to the European Union'</td><td>Poland</td></tr><tr><td>Wang</td><td>Ye</td><td>Foreign Environmental Cooperation Centre, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of China</td><td>China</td></tr><tr><td>Wegerdt</td><td>Patrick</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr><tr><td>Wittmer</td><td>Heidi</td><td>Eklipse - Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research</td><td>Germany</td></tr><tr><td>Wugt Larsen</td><td>Frank</td><td>EEA</td><td>EU</td></tr><tr><td>Xu</td><td>Jing</td><td>Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences</td><td>China</td></tr><tr><td>Yamazaki</td><td>Mari</td><td>Ministry of the Environment</td><td>Japan</td></tr><tr><td>Young</td><td>Juliette</td><td>UKCEH and INRAE'</td><td>France</td></tr><tr><td>Zaunberger</td><td>Karin</td><td>European Commission</td><td>Belgium</td></tr></table>
## ANNEX 2:

# Agenda, including descriptions of the breakout groups

Transformative change in the post-2020 global biodiversity framework
Participatory webinar - 23/25/26 June 2020 - *by invitation only*

### DAY1: Tuesday 23 June 13.30-15.30

Central European Summer Time (CEST) (Brussels time)

#### Introductory seminar

**13.30** John Bell (European Commission, DG Research and Innovation, Healthy Planet, Director)
Welcome

**Introduction** Objectives and agenda

**14.00** Framing presentations on transformative change
*Hans Bruyninckx* (EEA, Executive Director) – EEA perspective on transformative change
*Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers* (Radboud University) – Transformative change in the
IPBES global and nexus assessments

**14.20** First breakout group discussion

**14.30** Coffee and tea break

**14.40** Framing presentations of the background document and proposed transformative
change principles and actions
*Harriet Bulkeley* and *Marcel Kok* (Eklipse expert working group, Co-Chairs)

**14.55** Second breakout group discussion

**15.05** Basile van Havre / Francis Ogwal (OEWG, Co-Chairs) – Transformative change
in the OEWG

**15.15** Panel discussion on questions from the breakout groups: *Harriet Bulkeley*, *Marcel Kok*, *Jiska van Dijk* (Eklipse expert working group, Co-Chairs), *Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers* (Radboud University), *Basile van Havre / Francis Ogwal* (OEWG, Co-Chairs)

**15.30** Introduction to the next sessions
## Day 2: Thursday 25 June

Two sessions working in small groups in a participatory way to identify concrete, hands-on recommendations for capturing transformative change in the structure of the post-2020 GBF. These sessions will address different questions but will build on each other and participants are invited to join both to contribute fully to the process. However, due to time zone constraints, participants can also attend only one session to provide their contribution.

### SESSION 1 – 10.00–12.30 CEST

How far is the current post-2020 GBF discussion on targets taking account of transformative change?

10.00 ... Ana Kobašlić (Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union) – Welcome

#### Introduction and objectives, agenda, recap of Day 1

10.20 ... Charlotta Sörqvist (SBI, Chair) – Outlook on transformative change in SBI-3

10.30 ... Jiska van Dijk – Introduction to transformative change principles and actions

10.40 ... Breakout groups, part 1 (introduction and break included)

11.10 ... Breakout groups, part 2 (break included)

11.45 ... Breakout groups, part 3

12.10–12.30 ... Feedback on breakout group discussions

#### Breakout groups, session 1 (description in the annex on the website)

1. Terrestrial and inland water biodiversity (direct and indirect drivers)

2. Marine and coastal biodiversity

3. Sustainable production and Consumption

4. Climate change

5. Cities

6. Health

### SESSION 2 – 15.00–17.30 CEST

How can we better capture transformative change in the structure of the post-2020 GBF?

15.00 ... Didier Babin (Expertise France) – Welcome
Introduction and objectives, agenda, recap of Day 1

15.15 ... Hesiquio Benítez (SBSTTA, Chair) – Outlook on transformative change in SBSTTA-24

15.25 ... Marcel Kok – Enabling factors for transformative change in the background document

15.40 ... Breakout groups, part 1 (introduction and break included)
16.10 ................. Breakout groups, part 2 (break included)

16.45 ................. Breakout groups, part 3

17.10-17.30 ..... Feedback on breakout group discussions

Breakout groups, session 2 (description in the annex on the website)

1. Implementation mechanism (including NBSAPs)

2. Accountability and reporting

3. Indicators and monitoring framework for transformative action

4. Capacity building and whole-of-society approach

5. Further enabling conditions (actors and capabilities, learning approach, etc.)

6. Finance for implementation and involving the financial sector

## Day 3: Friday 26 June 13.30-16.00

Central European Summer Time (CEST) (Brussels time)

### Concluding seminar

13.30 ................. Humberto Delgado Rosa
(European Commission, DG Environment, Natural Capital, Director) – Welcome

### Introduction Objectives and agenda

13.55 ................. Feedback on breakout groups from Day 2, session 1
Tim Hirsch (science writer) – Progress summary on GBO-5

14.25 ................. First breakout group discussion

14.40 ................. Coffee and tea break

14.50 ................. Panel discussion on questions from the first breakout group: Harriet Bulkeley, Jiska van Dijk, Marco Fritz (EU), Basile van Havre / Francis Ogwal, Alexander Shestakov (CBD secretariat)

15.10 ................. Feedback on breakout groups from Day 2, session 2

15.20 ................. Second breakout group discussion

15.30 ................. Panel discussion on questions from the second breakout group: Harriet Bulkeley, Jiska van Dijk, Karin Zaunberger (EU), Basile van Havre / Francis Ogwal, Alexander Shestakov

15.45-16.00 ..... Alexander Shestakov – Conclusions from this workshop for the CBD process
Technical conclusions and follow-up
Acknowledgements
## ANNEX 3: Resources from the workshop

A short video detailing the highlights of the workshop can be found in the [website of the workshop](#).

The background tables summarising selected principles and actions on transformative change along with targets and enabling factors in the post-2020 biodiversity framework that were used to facilitate the breakout discussions on the various topics can be found at the following links.

### Cities.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NH2HPCyzQO-g8rogTTIx04NHPteMpgB0/view?usp=sharing

### Terrestrial and inland water biodiversity.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P72JMZ34p4H MgII7GuGh8LxJyC2x7X3-/view?usp=sharing

### Marine and coastal biodiversity.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hm1kbcgstHSrM4iY8OGyY SvA3lujUOVb/view?usp=sharing

### Sustainable production and consumption.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13cFd5HqXFTLu_7YWmlW34VI3VYvOX7xj/view?usp=sharing

### Health.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16hJzRFexGi2rmNCbk3QDTQPuZl0uM6Lz/view?usp=sharing

### Climate change.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wgh4Xnsxq0w7Nx3r43K0QMoP79lCYf1G/view?usp=sharing

### Implementation mechanisms.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1F1wIRDAq8s3IgLS2ca0w026huDA6SWjo/view?usp=sharing

### Enabling conditions.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mWfyglDEOzQDEYSsvE8dmnnZhjdYL8GL/view?usp=sharing

### Accountability and reporting.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bqWEVZdA5-2rjsh6XHyDSYzpBHBQDGEU/view?usp=sharing

### Indicators and monitoring framework for transformative action.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16hK89_6OqtGGlwGnwUdHzid3Glj0VReC/view?usp=sharing

### Capacity building and whole-of-society approach.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ttX6gL62GodAErDQwgH_FKH9zzUm7Tm_/_view?usp=sharing

### Finance for implementation.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kl3DqpgbS5HfeHvWdFWrOs3no8zVKocH/view?usp=sharing
## Day 1 Presentations

**Hans Bruyninckx.** EEA perspective on transformative change

Video presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1mniBobcXvhfn1kTOfK_mWDXhR9rFgmyX/view?usp=sharing

**Ingrid Visseren-Hamakers.** Transformative change in the IPBES global and nexus assessments

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HOHRMU3Y8GI9qWVLI6wSSQblbOQcvP3/_/view?usp=sharing

Video:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IGWUWhgGL6DeTe1TelFosKK2HZ8gqs1u/view?usp=sharing

**Harriet Bulkeley and Marcel Kok.** Transformative change for biodiversity – harnessing the potential of the post-2020 global biodiversity framework

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UvH_hAbtn_PMhWPb1j0CeGTT_JQqwlyP/view?usp=sharing

**Basile van Havre and Francis Ogwal** (OEWG, Co-Chairs).

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KK82fys1fqhP5WK_nkV8k7qjn067DrLE/view?usp=sharing

## Day 2 Presentations

**Jiska van Dijk.** Introduction to transformative change principles and actions

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yUwi52Lcof50VI2BhvL5w-RIR29DJVm0/view?usp=sharing

**Hesiquio Benítez** (SBSTTA, Chair). 'Outlook on transformative change in SBSTTA-24'

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MXSMIAP_wjrJf4fUSCA56BthRqbgv3uD/view?usp=sharing

**Marcel Kok.** Enabling factors for transformative change in the background document

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ka7T91SlugtFx3YVeKvnKC73cvrjQ7xD/view?usp=sharing

## Day 3 Presentations

**Tim Hirsch.** Fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/185uQ2osSB1SY-X6BcCkTAYK9g9ngIAGu/view?usp=sharing

**Summary Slides**

Presentation:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QfsLX0ZhC9UC3-XCcr5C7RuOjofbKqLo/view?usp=sharing
## ANNEX 4:

# Organisers of the workshop

### European Commission

#### DG Research and Innovation

This Commission department is responsible for EU policy on research, science and innovation, with a view to help create growth and jobs and tackle our biggest societal challenges.

#### DG Environment

The Directorate-General for Environment is the European Commission department responsible for EU policy on the environment. It aims to protect, preserve and improve the environment for present and future generations, proposing and implementing policies that ensure a high level of environmental protection and preserve the quality of life of EU citizens. It also makes sure that Member States apply EU environmental law correctly and represents the European Union in environmental matters at international meetings.

### Eklipse

Since 2016 Eklipse has been the European Science-Policy-Society Interface on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. It supports evidence-informed decision-making on issues related to biodiversity and ecosystem services at the European level by answering Requests by policy and other societal actors who identify topics or evidence needs requiring in-depth analysis and/or a consolidated view from science and other knowledge holders.

Eklipse produces ethical, credible, transparent, and jointly developed evidence reports (and other targeted outputs), addressing specific societal and policy needs. To reach this goal, Eklipse uses a proven and robust process that responds to the evidence needs of requesters by synthesizing the best available knowledge, performing a horizon scan, facilitating actionable policy recommendations, or by engaging society.

From December 2020 onwards, the EKLIPSE mechanism will be managed by the ALTER-Net Network, a network of 28 European research institutes which aims to enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services knowledge in Europe through high-level multi-disciplinary science integration.

Website: http://eklipse-mechanism.eu
## Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework – EU Support

Post-2020 Biodiversity Framework – EU Support is a three-years project funded by the European Union and implemented by Expertise France, which aims at supporting initiatives and catalyzing efforts conducive to reaching an ambitious agreement at the 15th Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD COP15) in Kunming, that fosters commitment and effective implementation.

Among other activities, the project implements side-events to international summits, as well as workshops, study visits, peer to-peer exchanges and experts meetings mobilizing key experts from scientific institutions, international organizations and national authorities from 20 partner countries. It also supports the mobilization of key stakeholders (youth movements and civil society, local and subnational governments, private sector) in this international negotiation process.

Website: https://4post2020bd.net/

## Croatian Presidency of the Council of the EU

Croatia took over the rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union from January 2020 to June 2020. This was the first occasion since its accession to the European Union. The motto of the Croatian Presidency was 'A strong Europe in a world of challenges'. The presidency programme focused on four main (1) A Europe that develops; (2) A Europe that connects; (3) A Europe that protects; (4) An influential Europe.

## Lead and technical facilitators of the workshop

Estelle Balian- Lead facilitator of the workshop. FEAL (Facilitation for Environmental Action and Learning). She is a facilitator and expert in interface between science and policy on environmental issues. Mediator specializing in environmental conflicts. She has expertise in the engagement of stakeholders and consultation of local actors (participatory and collaborative methods). She has coordinated several events, workshops and conferences. She has knowledge in the areas of watershed management, biodiversity, ecosystem services & climate change.

Karl Danskin- CollectivityNow (Technical facilitator)

Todd Erickson Co-creative Consulting (Collaborative platform facilitator)

<figure><img src="image_17.png" /></figure>

European
Commission

<figure><img src="image_18.png" /></figure>

EKLIPSE

Knowledge & Learning Mechanism
on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services

<figure><img src="image_19.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_20.png" /></figure>

Croatian Presidency of the
Council of the European Union
# Getting in touch with the EU

## IN PERSON

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres.
You can find the address of the centre nearest you at:
https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

## ON THE PHONE OR BY EMAIL

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union.
You can contact this service:

- by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),

- at the following standard number: +32 22999696, or

- by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

# Finding information about the EU

## ONLINE

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

## EU PUBLICATIONS

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from:
https://op.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting
Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en)

## EU LAW AND RELATED DOCUMENTS

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

## OPEN DATA FROM THE EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from the EU.
Data can be downloaded and reused for free, for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
Transformative change across the economic, social, political and technological sectors has been identified as a crucial precondition for bending the curve of biodiversity loss (IPBES<fnref n="1" />, 2019). This is echoed by similar calls from the European Environment Agency's report on Sustainability transitions (2019), or the Convention on Biological Diversity's fifth Global Biodiversity Outlook (2020).

However, there is little understanding of how transformative change can be leveraged at the level of global governance for biodiversity policies. In other words: what transformative change could consist of and how it could be integrated into, and be facilitated by, the upcoming post-2020 global biodiversity framework has yet to be discussed in the necessary, concrete detail.

With this background, the European Commission's Directorates-General Research & Innovation and Environment, together with the Croatian Presidency of the Council of the European Union organized a 3-days virtual workshop, supported by Eklipse, the EU science-policy mechanism on biodiversity and ecosystem services, and Expertise France. The central aim of this workshop was to bring together and engage scientists and policy makers in a transparent dialogue on transformative change. Taking up respective work of the Convention on Biological Diversity on the process towards the post-2020 global biodiversity framework, participants discussed options on how to translate principles of transformative change into actions, goals, targets and pathways for the new global biodiversity framework. The workshop attracted more than 150 participants from 48 different countries.

<figure><img src="image_21.png" /></figure>

<footnote n="1">¹ IPBES is the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services</footnote>