According to the DAISY policy brief, the answer is not simply setting more ambitious targets. Protecting and restoring nature requires biodiversity objectives to be embedded in the way other sectors of the economy and society operate.
The DAISY analysis draws on five major EU policy instruments. It finds that many already contain ambitious goals and potentially transformative elements, but systemic change is still held back by implementation gaps, weak policy coherence, and limited engagement with the deeper causes of biodiversity loss.
Five particularly important directions emerge from the recommendations.
1. Biodiversity policy must extend beyond the environmental sector
Nature restoration cannot be treated as the responsibility of environmental ministries alone.
Biodiversity objectives need to be incorporated into agriculture, fisheries, forestry, energy, trade, and climate policy. Without this alignment, environmental policies risk working against sectoral policies that continue to drive biodiversity loss.
The study highlights mechanisms such as joint working groups, inter-ministerial committees, and inter-sectoral advisory bodies as ways to improve coordination and complementarity across institutions. These mechanisms can also create additional opportunities for stakeholder participation.
2. Implementation mechanisms matter as much as policy principles
Principles such as justice, equity, pluralism, and inclusion are important, but simply mentioning them in policy documents is not enough.
The brief argues that these principles need to be supported by concrete institutional mechanisms.
This matters because biodiversity loss is linked not only to direct environmental pressures, but also to deeper structural issues such as the concentration of power and wealth, widening inequalities, and the prioritisation of short-term material gains. Without addressing these factors, environmental policy can remain focused on symptoms rather than causes.
3. Public participation needs to have real influence
Public engagement is too often treated as a procedural checkbox.
The DAISY analysis notes that participation processes may fail to include all relevant groups and may lack transparency about how stakeholder input has influenced policy outcomes.
Meaningful participation requires careful design, including the removal of barriers faced by groups with less power, fewer resources, or weaker political representation.
4. Policymaking needs more space for learning and diverse knowledge
Participation should not be reduced to one-off consultation exercises.
The policy brief calls for engagement formats that allow people from different sectors, professional backgrounds, institutions, and social groups to interact, learn together, and review decisions over time.
These processes also need enough time to enable participants to move beyond individual policy measures and collectively reflect on the underlying causes of ecosystem degradation and biodiversity loss.
5. We also need to change how society relates to nature
Perhaps the most far-reaching recommendation concerns the way nature itself is framed.
The study observes that policy frequently treats nature as an object to be managed or as a provider of services for human needs. At the same time, ideas of human responsibility and reciprocal relationships with nature receive much less attention.
Transformative change therefore requires not only new rules, but also new narratives.
The brief highlights the need to foster respect, care, and emotional connection with nature, and points to collaborations beyond the environmental sector — for example with education and the arts — as potential ways to reshape how people relate to nature and to one another.
The short, visual version of the policy brief is available here.
The shorter version is particularly useful as a shareable overview. The diagram on page 3 summarises the five major challenges to transformative change, while page 4 shows how biodiversity policy integration connects with changes in views, practices, and structures.
