Leveraging Biodiversity Action From Plural Values: Transformations of Governance Systems

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that leveraging plural values into action for biodiversity requires a focus on transforming the biodiversity governance system. We draw on Donella Meadows’ concept of Leverage Points, which outlines the “depth” of intervention in order to shift a system toward sustainability. Engaging with deep leverage points (system intent and goals) is argued to lead to greater transformation than engaging with shallow leverage points (system design and materials). We outline how embracing plural values of biodiversity requires changes at deeper systems properties within governance systems to create space to reflect diversity in values and knowledge systems, and move away from a focus on commodification of nature’s contributions to people. We point toward political and policy sciences to highlight frameworks and concepts for understanding governance system transformation. We conclude with a call for meaningful engagement with such sciences in ongoing research.

Co‐design: Working with farmers in Europe to halt the loss of biological diversity

“…A key feature of the process seems to be that stakeholders are no longer seen as recipients of information or suppliers of feedback, but as equal contributors and co‐creators of visions, actions and knowledge. The integration of plural values, stakeholder empowerment and the adaptive capacity are seen as integral components of co‐design processes, as is the case in the recent literature on transforming governance systems to halt biodiversity loss (Leventon et al., 2021; Visseren‐Hamakers et al., 2021).…”

“… Collective knowledge and action are needed to conserve farmland biodiversity : As developing conservation measures for farmland biodiversity is particularly challenging, various studies highlight the need to leverage collective knowledge from multiple disciplines (e.g. agroecology, agronomy, nature conservation management) and as well as academic and non‐academic stakeholders (Lang et al., 2012; Leventon et al., 2021; Norström et al., 2020). Participatory approaches, as opposed to top‐down or expert‐driven approaches, have already been shown to increase farmer motivation to implement conservation measures, especially in the long term (Dawson et al., 2021; Sterling et al., 2017).…”

“…In summary, there is a consensus that existing measures and policy instruments need to be better adapted to local conditions in order to achieve current politically set biodiversity targets (e.g. EU Biodiversity Strategy 2030) (Leventon et al., 2021; Mupepele et al., 2021; Pe'er & Lakner, 2020; Pe'er et al., 2020; Visseren‐Hamakers et al., 2021). The role of farmers in shaping these measures and policies could be of paramount importance, as they hold local knowledge and are the ones who ultimately implement conservation measures (Lacombe et al., 2018).…”

Dethroning the Planetary Perspective: Dealing with Actually-Occurring Transformations Using Dialogical Sense-Making and Critical Phenomenology

“…Bringing the two approaches together helps us to dig deeper into the processes of pluralisation. The combined approaches show how transformative changes can be seen as inter-subjective processes; no two peoples experiences will map precisely a particular point on a multi-dimensional spectrum of intentionality and desirability, because everyone experiences a particular change process differently, and makes sense of it and responds to it differently, even where they share in common larger political and physical conditions (Leventon et al, 2021b). When people are located as part of change processes, what may seem 'obvious' and to be 'taken for granted' at a larger scale when employing a systems ontology, becomes more uncertain.…”

Dethroning the Planetary Perspective: Dealing with Actually-Occurring Transformations Using Dialogical Sense-Making and Critical Phenomenology

“…As shown by dialogical sense-making and other qualitative research, people make sense of and respond to change in distinct and creative ways, even where they are situated in common larger political, imaginative, and physical conditions (Leventon et al, 2021b). Such pluralism creates ambiguity that can't be arrived at through external assessment (i.e.…”