The study examines five major EU policy instruments: the Birds Directive, the Habitats Directive, the European Climate Law, the Urban Agenda for the EU, and the Nature Restoration Regulation. It assesses how these policies integrate biodiversity objectives, how those objectives are operationalised, whether the necessary capacities and mechanisms are in place, and how well the policies align with wider EU sustainability goals.
The analysis draws on the IPBES framework for transformative change. According to this framework, lasting transformation requires change across three interconnected dimensions: views — how we see, understand, and value the world; structures — how institutions, regulations, and governance systems are organised; and practices — how people and organisations act and relate to one another and to nature.
The policy brief identifies five major challenges that can prevent this transformation:
- persistent relations of domination over people and nature;
- economic and political inequalities;
- misfit policies and institutions;
- unsustainable consumption and production patterns;
- limited access to technologies and weak coordination across knowledge and innovation systems.
The diagram on page 11 of the full report illustrates the logic clearly: the direct drivers of biodiversity loss are connected to indirect drivers, which in turn are rooted in deeper structural causes. This means that policymaking cannot focus only on the immediate symptoms of biodiversity decline.
Strong targets, weak implementation
The policies examined contain several potentially transformative elements. Many include ambitious biodiversity-related goals, binding obligations, monitoring mechanisms, and opportunities for participation.
However, the analysis finds that these strengths are often undermined by weaknesses in implementation. Vague commitments, limited enforcement, and insufficient operationalisation reduce their transformative potential. There is also a lack of coherence between biodiversity objectives and key sectoral policies, particularly in agriculture, energy, spatial planning, and trade.
An even deeper challenge is that the analysed policies engage only to a limited extent with the underlying causes of biodiversity loss. These include the concentration of power and wealth, persistent inequalities, and the prioritisation of short-term economic and material gains.
Principles such as justice, equity, pluralism, and inclusion are referenced in several policies, but the study finds that they often remain rhetorical and are rarely translated into concrete implementation mechanisms.
What makes a policy truly transformative?
One of the central messages of the study is that transformative environmental policy is about more than strengthening existing environmental rules.
Reversing biodiversity decline requires biodiversity objectives to be integrated across other areas of policymaking. It also requires attention to the values, institutional arrangements, economic incentives, and power relations that continuously reproduce environmental degradation.
In other words, better implementation matters — but implementation alone is not enough. Transformative policymaking must also address the deeper systems that shape how societies relate to nature.
The full analysis and recommendations are available here.
The report is DAISY Deliverable D5.10 and distils the main messages and recommendations from an earlier policy and legal analysis for policymakers and stakeholders at EU and international levels.
