Power, knowledge and implementation: insights from the Biodiversa+ Science-Policy Forum

On 21 April 2026, the Biodiversa+ Science-Policy Forum on biodiversity and transformative change brought together researchers, policymakers and practitioners to examine what it takes to move from ambition to implementation.

Across discussions, one point stood out: biodiversity loss is shaped by systems, incentives and practices that continue to prioritise short-term gains, concentrate power and disconnect people from nature. Frameworks exist, but their impact depends on how they are applied in practice.

Beyond frameworks: confronting structural barriers

The forum opened with a framing of transformative change as a systemic challenge. The IPBES Transformative Change Assessment identifies persistent and reinforcing barriers, including economic and political inequality, concentration of power and wealth, institutions ill-suited to complex problems, and unsustainable production and consumption patterns.

This perspective informed discussions on the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF). While the framework sets clear targets and a long-term vision, its impact will depend on implementation. Without addressing underlying drivers, policy responses risk remaining reformist, creating the appearance of progress while leaving core dynamics unchanged.

Tensions in practice: conservation, power and knowledge

The first panel focused on tensions that emerge in practice.

A central issue was mainstreaming biodiversity. Despite decades of effort, it remains treated as a separate policy area rather than embedded in economic and social systems. As one panellist noted, nature-based solutions alone are insufficient if the broader economic model remains unchanged. What is needed is a shift towards a “nature-based economy” where ecological limits are foundational.

The discussion also highlighted actors often missing from the picture. While civil society appears in around 30% of the scientific literature on transformative change, social movements and NGOs are mentioned in less than 1%. Yet many of these actors are actively defending ecosystems, often in areas of high biodiversity value and under significant pressure.

Their role is not only under-recognised but also contested. In many contexts, environmental defence is associated with repression or violence. Supporting transformative change therefore involves addressing the conditions under which these actors operate, not only acknowledging their contribution.

Questions of knowledge were equally central. Several panellists pointed to the limits of extractive research practices and emphasised the need for “dialogues of knowledges” that engage different value systems. This requires time, trust and institutional change.

Examples illustrated these tensions. Conservation policies that restrict human activity can undermine Indigenous communities whose practices sustain ecosystems. Renewable energy projects developed without adequate consultation can affect local livelihoods. These cases point to a broader issue: transformative change depends not only on policy design, but on how decisions are made and whose knowledge and practices are recognised.

Working with complexity: lessons from BiodivTransform projects

The second panel explored how these challenges are addressed in research practice.

Transformative change unfolds in systems that are not only complicated but complex and adaptive. Unlike complicated systems, which can be predicted and controlled, complex systems are characterised by uncertainty, feedbacks and emergence. This means that interventions cannot be fully planned in advance and must adapt over time.

This has implications for project design and evaluation. The concept of “processual accountability” captures this shift, emphasising approaches that remain accountable while adapting during implementation rather than relying solely on fixed plans.

Co-production was another key theme. Rather than moving quickly towards integration, several projects emphasise creating spaces where different perspectives can be expressed and tensions explored. This includes engaging with Indigenous and local knowledge as a starting point, not an add-on.

Projects illustrate different pathways into transformative change, from multispecies governance approaches that challenge human-nature dichotomies, to restorative aquaculture, to place-based work on social-ecological systems. Across these approaches, a common challenge is translating plural values and knowledge into policy. While recognition is increasing, uptake remains limited.

Rethinking the role of research

The discussions did not treat research as an external observer. They highlighted its role in shaping transformation.

This shifts attention to how research is conducted: how it engages with society, how it works across disciplines and sectors, and how it relates to different knowledge systems. It also raises questions about the role of researchers within the systems they study, and the extent to which research practices may reinforce existing dynamics.

In this context, transformative change depends not only on new knowledge, but on whether research practices themselves evolve.

From policy ambition to systemic transformation

The forum also addressed how transformative change is being translated into policy and economic systems.

At EU level, this includes efforts to move from targets to implementation through regulation, funding and research investment. Measures such as the Nature Restoration Regulation, biodiversity mainstreaming in EU spending, and Horizon Europe investment reflect attempts to embed biodiversity across sectors.

Several contributions emphasised the need to rethink economic and financial systems. Biodiversity loss was framed as a systemic risk, linked to how economies operate and how value is defined. Addressing this requires shifts in incentives, investment patterns and governance frameworks.

An ongoing and contested process

The forum did not point to a single pathway. It highlighted tensions that need to be navigated: between conservation and livelihoods, between knowledge systems, and between short-term interests and long-term sustainability. Transformative change will not be delivered by a single intervention. It depends on whether policies, economic systems, research practices and social actors begin to move in the same direction.

Biodiversa+ contributes to this process by supporting research that engages with these complexities and by creating spaces where science, policy and practice can interact. Ultimately, transformative change is not only a technical challenge. It is about how societies organise knowledge, distribute power and define their relationship with nature.