Proposals should engage with civil society organisations – in particular those working on gender, diversity, equity and inclusion –, social partners, policy makers, financing, industry and business leaders, and retailers and value-led (such as religious and cultural) institutions when addressing the role of enabling players for transformative changes in biodiversity actions, exemplified at relevant levels from local to global. They should identify and test measures to overcome barriers for behaviour changes in biodiversity action, considering ethical questions in behavioural economics, e.g. linked to future generations. This should acknowledge the interdependence of the climate and biodiversity crisis.

The proposals should explore intersectionality approaches and consider interlocking systems of power between gender and other social categories and identities such as religion, ethnicity and race (including migrants and refugees), social class and wealth, gender identity and sexual orientation and disability to better address access to and ownership of nature-based solutions. The proposals should analyse and address the impact of intrinsic vs economic/utilitarian values. They should include an estimation of the importance of engineered vs haphazard policy making factors at relevant levels, and specify and address effects of processes affecting adherence to democracy, voting campaigns, science denialism. The proposals should build their analysis upon the synergies of multiple Sustainable Development Goals, to deliver direct and indirect biodiversity benefits, and of the role of biodiversity in reaching the set of Sustainable Development Goals, considering the importance of behaviour, lifestyle, religious and cultural values.

The proposals should produce case studies and collect good and failed examples that could inform these transformations and inform and inspire transformative change through learning, co-creation and dialogue.