A central question in biodiversity governance is how the international community will regulate the conservation and equitable sharing of benefits from the utilization of marine genetic resources in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ). The equity question concerns how to secure benefits from global commons resources for all, not only for financially and technologically strong actors. The access and benefit-sharing (ABS) principles set out in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (CBD, 1993) and elaborated in its 2014 Nagoya Protocol are decisive rules on these equity concerns.

The individual animal has often been neglected in biodiversity governance debates, with animals mainly considered in terms of species, biodiversity, wildlife or natural resources. Indeed, and somewhat counterintuitively, biodiversity governance is not always animal-friendly. Think, for example, of the issues of wildlife management, (“sport”) hunting, captive breeding, reintroduction and relocation of endangered species, and the use of animal testing in conservation research (De Mori, 2019). For some issues, the relationship is more complex, for example the “management” of Invasive Alien Species (IAS), which is detrimental to the individuals of the species considered “invasive” but beneficial to native species and habitats (Barkham, 2020). Elsewhere, economic development and incentives impact both biodiversity and animal concerns, such as the negative effects of animal agriculture (see Visseren-Hamakers, 2018a; 2020 for more detailed overviews of these relationships). How can we transform biodiversity governance in order to incorporate individual animal interests (Bernstein, 2015)? That is the central question of this chapter.

In any attempt to “rethink” biodiversity governance, we need to consider that defining nature (and related concepts such as biodiversity, ecosystems, landscapes or green infrastructure) is not merely an objective scientific exercise. In reality, context-specific, subjective, normative and dynamic worldviews and values are at play in any definition of nature, whether explicitly or implicitly. Being aware of this pluralism is essential for avoiding “objective” definitional attitudes that risk disregarding and marginalizing the plurality of values and worldviews connected to different definitions of nature. In fact, paternalistic positions can create breeding grounds for fruitless dialogues between stakeholders, and thus pluralistic approaches help open up spaces for discussion.

The ocean’s enormity and depth are illustrated by the limited ability of humankind to comprehend it. The current science and policy seascape remains largely fragmented, and as a result the integrity of marine life and the well-being of those (human and nonhuman) dependent on a healthy ocean is being negatively impacted. Fragmented governance is an indirect driver of ocean biodiversity loss due to its inability to provide synergistic solutions to address simultaneously multiple direct drivers for such loss (overfishing, land-based and marine pollution, and climate change). This governance problem is well known (Kelly et al., 2019; Watson-Wright and Valdés, 2018), and to some extent it is being addressed in ongoing international negotiations on an international instrument on marine biodiversity of areas beyond national jurisdiction (A/RES/72/249, 2017).

The governing of nature has been an essential part of the story of urbanization. Whether through the conversion of rivers for transportation, the creation of urban drainage systems for wastewater removal or the installation of parks for their recreational and aesthetic value (Gandy, 2004; Gleeson and Low, 2000; Rydin, 1998), nature has played a critical role in urban development. Yet, conservationist thinking, which has dominated environmental governance and policy, has tended to equate the environment as belonging to either “rural” or “wilderness” places that needed to be protected from the encroachment of (urban) society (Owens, 1992). As a result, much of the governance of biodiversity at the urban scale during the twentieth century was focused on the designation and enforcement of protected areas (Vaccaro et al., 2013).

The urgency to halt and reverse the alarming rates of biodiversity loss is grounded in the most comprehensive and up-to-date evidence (e.g. Dasgupta, 2021; Díaz et al., 2019) and has been translated into a forward-looking governance agenda for stimulating biodiversity conservation (CBD, 2020a; see Chapter 1 for a more detailed overview).

Around one million species of animals and plants are threatened with extinction. It is increasingly clear that this tragedy can only be avoided through transformative change (IPBES, 2019). This chapter aims to understand why the current state of biodiversity is so fragile, despite over half a century of global conservation efforts, and develop insights for more effective ways forward. We argue that past efforts have failed in part because they are based on an “ill-fit for purpose” problem analysis, and that reconfiguring problem conceptions shows promising directions for identifying novel strategies for triggering transformative change.

News on the state of the environment does not seem to be improving. Despite some holding on to “conservation optimism,”1 the general conclusion in the academic and policy literature is that global biodiversity, the global climate and the state of other environmental indicators are bad, and getting worse (CBD, 2020; European Environment Agency, 2019; IPBES, 2019; Lenton et al., 2019; Newbold et al., 2016; Tucker et al., 2018; Watson et al., 2016; WWF, 2018).

The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (the Post-2020 Framework) is expected to embody transformative change through the adoption of the framework’s “Theory of Change” (CBD, 2020). Its implementation must recognize that the global biodiversity governance architecture needs to transform to lead the required personal and social transformations, including shifts in values, beliefs and patterns of social behaviors (Chaffin et al., 2016), necessary to successfully tackle biodiversity loss. Against this backdrop, the overarching goal of this chapter is to analyze what needs to be transformed in global biodiversity governance, including institutional structures that shape values, beliefs and behavioral change. The chapter examines obstacles and opportunities for transformation, with the indirect objective of informing implementation of the Post-2020 Framework; at the time of writing, the CBD is expected to adopt the Post-2020 GBF in 2022.

While there are increasing calls for transformative change and transformative governance, what this means in the context of addressing biodiversity loss remains debated. The aim of this edited volume Transforming Biodiversity Governance is to open up this debate and identify ways forward in the context of the implementation of the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). To become transformative, biodiversity governance needs to be transformed: yet how and by whom? These questions are urgent, given the fact that around one million species are threatened with extinction (Díaz et al., 2019), despite over half a century of global efforts to avoid this tragedy.

This book is written at a vital time for biodiversity around the world. Biodiversity is threatened more than ever before in human history, and nature and its vital contributions to people are deteriorating worldwide, as highlighted by various recent reports (CBD, 2020a; EEA, 2019; IPBES, 2019; WWF, 2020). This is not only a problem for these ecosystems and their inhabitants, but also for humans, since we depend on biodiversity for many vital processes such as food production and provision of natural resources. These risks of biodiversity loss are increasingly recognized among policymakers, academics and society at large (IPBES, 2019; WEF, 2021).