As a collaborative output of different projects including CLEVER, our policy brief Leveraging EU biodiversity policy towards net positive impacts on global biodiversity outlines a science-based strategy to align EU policies for global biodiversity restoration. It addresses the insufficient progress toward Biodiversity Strategy 2030 targets caused by unsustainable practices, climate change, and geopolitical tensions. The policy brief emphasizes that consumption in the EU drives environmental pressures abroad, thus requiring stronger trade regulations like the EU Deforestation Regulation. Key recommendations for EU decision makers are:
Use detailed land-use planning to guide local environmental policies while expanding trade and financial rules to safeguard diverse ecosystems and support conservation efforts in other countries.
Prioritize biodiversity by making it a core requirement in all domestic land-use and economic planning while ensuring international trade and finance agreements carry the same environmental weight as economic goals.
Build fair, inclusive partnerships by involving local stakeholders in policy planning and working directly with major trading countries to share the responsibility and benefits of protecting nature.
Tick-tock. With every minute that passes, roughly ten football (soccer) fields of irreplaceable tropical primary forest vanish from our planet. Deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics have serious local and global impacts, like undermining livelihoods of local communities and peoples, harming biodiversity, and aggravating climate change impacts. The relentless forest loss is particularly critical in regions like Africa’s Congo Basin, which is the second-largest continuous tropical rainforest in the world and a biodiversity hotspot. In hopes of addressing these issues, policy makers have taken different initiatives. Cameroon – a country in the Congo Basin – adopted a revised Forestry Law in 2024, replacing its previous Forestry Law that stemmed from 1994 and appeared long outdated. The revised law regulates and aims to achieve the sustainable use and management of Cameroon’s forest resources, responding to today’s challenges like the climate change. The European Union (EU) has also taken initiative with its Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR). The EUDR aims to minimize the EU’s contribution to deforestation and forest degradation worldwide and thereby reduces global forest loss. This rests on the notion that the EU market imports and consumes forest and agricultural products that fuel forest loss elsewhere. The EUDR focuses on seven such commodities, namely: cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and wood.
These two initiatives share similar end goals but vary in their approach and scope. Cameroon’s revised Forestry Law is focused on creating clear rules of play in the country’s forest sector, which covers participatory management of forest and wildlife resources, sustainable forest management, forest protection and conservation, and community rights, among other things. The law defines the State’s role of monitoring and enforcement and sets penalties in cases of non-compliance. For Cameroon, the EUDR means EU companies must verify that the seven key commodities imported from Cameroon are legal and haven’t caused deforestation or forest degradation since 2020. To this end, companies in the EU must seek collaboration with their overseas suppliers in ensuring that EUDR provisions are met. For goods to be exported to the EU, companies in Cameroon must document and make available information to their EU buyers about the legality and deforestation-free status of their products. These measures include aspects like providing geolocation information about where commodities were grown and harvested.
Tree trunks loaded onto logging truck in the rain forest of Gabon, Central Africa. Photo by Fabian / Adobe Stock.
Different initiatives like the new Forestry Law and the EUDR can complement and support each other. Cameroon’s revised Forestry Law can help companies with EUDR compliance by seeking to strengthen the monitoring of forestry operations and punishing offenses more severely. The EUDR puts emphasis on legal compliance in countries of origin, like Cameroon, which can strengthen efforts to monitor and ensure compliance with forest and other laws in place. It can also help enhance traceability and transparency of supply chains, because it requires geolocation information of the commodities that are harvested and exported to the EU market – this, in turn, can support the goals of Cameroon’s new Forestry Law.
However, the initiatives also face challenges. For instance, the Forestry Law’s definitions of legal concepts may not align with international standards. Uncertainty also looms over the law’s implementation and enforcement, which has been a pain point with the previous edition of the law due to lacking resources and capacities of the forestry administration, for instance. This casts doubts over its potential effectiveness. The EUDR will also face multiple challenges in its implementation, like ensuring that its provisions are effectively enforced in the EU. The EUDR could also unequally affect producers in Cameroon, because smaller producers may struggle to meet the regulation’s strict requirements. It could also lead producers to divert their exports to other countries, such as China and Vietnam, where sustainability and legality standards are less strict than in the EU. Hence, while the EUDR’s effectiveness remains to be seen, it is already facing serious question marks.
Cameroon is not alone. Other countries in the region, like Gabon, are grappling with the EUDR’s implications while simultaneously devising their own domestic strategies to deal with deforestation. Ultimately, the story is repeated across countries worldwide, because the international trade by the EU means the EUDR has a global reach and each country will have its own interests, preferences, and proposed solutions to forest loss.
That is why it is crucial to seek collaboration among countries, underlining the shared responsibility in tackling deforestation. This is increasingly important in the context of today’s trade policy environment with its tangible tensions, where unilateral measures tend to carry unintended consequences. Hence, collaboration in implementation of regulations is especially essential for the EUDR, because its influence extends across the borders of a single country. Also, regulations like the revised Forestry Law remain the backbone in a domestic context, so their implementation and enforcement should be supported by partner countries. It is for the benefit of forests and communities that different regulations should ideally support each other: by creating a framework that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Simple wooden dugout canoe on Barombi Mbo crater lake of Cameroon, Africa. Photo by Fabian / Adobe Stock.
Authors: Mathias Cramm (European Forest Institute) and Abubakar Ali Shidiki (University of Dschang)
On June 4–5, 2025, over 150 participants gathered in Brussels and online for a two-day event hosted by 11 projects funded under the Horizon Europe Cluster on Transformative Change for Biodiversity.
CLEVER, BioValue, RAINFOREST, BAMBOO, BEDROCK, BioAgora, BIONEXT, BIOTraCes and TRANSPATH,PLANET4B and DAISY joined forces to gather and offer insights from each project. The event created a shared space to reflect on how biodiversity can be more effectively integrated into public policymaking, spatial planning, and socio-economic systems.
Rather than presenting isolated results, the projects explored the deeper shifts needed to address the biodiversity crisis. Panelists were invited to share their insights, to connect science-related results with policy representations at the institutional level. Leading researchers from projects, Maria Rosário Partidario from IST, coordinator of BioValue, and Jan Börner from University of Bonn, coordinator of CLEVER, presented their findings and shared their knowledge, while policymakers and representatives from the European Commission emphasized the central role of biodiversity in the economy, environment, and society. Invitees from the Directorates-General from the European Commission were present, among these, Humberto Rosa (DG ENV), Gilles Doignon (DG R&I) and Anne Teller (Formerly DG ENV).
Through interactive workshops and a policy dialogue session, the event opened a much-needed discussion on how to realign institutions, narratives, and planning frameworks around biodiversity as a core societal value.
Each project also contributed with poster presentations highlighting key insights from their published research, practical case studies, and emerging best practices. These visual materials served to share concrete results and stimulate further discussion among participants, offering an accessible way to engage with the diverse projects’ approaches.
Figure 1: Projects presenting their work within the Transformative Change for Biodiversity initiative
Key Themes Emerging from the Event: From Projects to Systemic Change
From case studies to tools and governance models, the event underscored the importance of working beyond project boundaries. The collective message was clear: tackling biodiversity loss requires systemic thinking, where biodiversity is not treated as an add-on, but as a foundational element in shaping futures.
Sessions highlighted that transformative change cannot succeed without addressing questions of justice, equity, and inclusion. Discussions emphasized the need for more participatory and inclusive planning processes that give voice to diverse communities, especially those most affected by environmental degradation.
Humberto Rosa emphasized: “We can only protect and mainstream biodiversity through enlightened human interest—its role for quality of life, food security, wellbeing, resilience and so much more. Biodiversity has long been a second thought in policy, but things are changing. The EU Green Deal brought momentum; now we need to work for more of society to follow.”
Figure 2: Discussions during a project’s session
Reframing Biodiversity as Opportunity: Integrated Governance for Real Impact
Participants recognized the fragmentation that often hampers biodiversity action. A key takeaway was the necessity for integrated governance—across sectors, scales, and institutions. By aligning environmental goals with economic, social, and territorial agendas, policymakers can unlock synergies and avoid trade-offs.
Throughout the two days, there was a strong call to shift how biodiversity is framed in public discourse. Moving away from narratives of loss and constraint, biodiversity must be communicated as a source of resilience, wellbeing, and long-term prosperity. The language used in policymaking and planning is not neutral—it shapes perception and determines priority.
The two-day gathering marked a significant step toward building a shared understanding of what transformative change for biodiversity entails. It demonstrates the power of collaboration—across projects, disciplines, and sectors—to challenge conventional approaches and to open new avenues for change. As the Horizon Europe projects continue their scientific research work, the momentum generated in Brussels will continue to fuel collective learning and cross-sector innovation for biodiversity.
All key insights, discussions, and outcomes from the event will be consolidated into a white paper, which will serve as a summary of the collective findings and reflections, culminating on policy recommendations. This document will bring together project results, shared lessons, and forward-looking recommendations, contributing to the broader dialogue on transformative change for biodiversity and informing future policy and practice.
We’re living in a time of growing environmental urgency, and protecting the world’s forests has never been more critical. Rainforests like the Amazon and the Congo Basin play a key role in fighting climate change by storing vast amounts of carbon and supporting incredible biodiversity. Yet these vital ecosystems are under threat—driven by global demand for commodities like soy, beef, and timber. What we consume in Europe often has hidden links to deforestation in distant regions.
Using the case of soy imports from Brazil, this video highlights the complex connections between international regulations, global trade, and biodiversity loss. The CLEVER project provides research to support transformative change by helping shape fairer, more effective policies for forest protection. Watch the video below to better understand the role we all play in protecting our planet’s forests.
As the timber sector in the Congo Basin prepares for the European Union Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), affected stakeholders have voiced their opinions about the opportunities, challenges, and needs the regulation creates. The EUDR will come into effect at the end of 2025, from which point businesses wishing to place products containing a relevant commodity[1], such as timber, onto the EU market will need to demonstrate that the commodity is legally sourced and not linked to destruction of forests at any point in the supply chain. With this requirement, the EUDR aims to ensure that EU sales of products containing timber do not lead to forest destruction in countries like Cameroon and Gabon, where timber is grown. Demonstrating that timber meets this requirement will require significant effort that will impact stakeholders throughout timber supply chains.
In October 2024, some of the business, policy, academic and NGO stakeholders from the timber sector in Cameroon and Gabon came together to describe the impact the EUDR is already starting to have, and the risks and opportunities they expect the regulation to create. Cameroon and Gabon lie in the Congo Basin, which is an important case study for the EUDR. The basin’s forests are critical for climate regulation, and the world’s second largest rainforest is an important hotspot for biodiversity. Like most rainforests, the Congo Basin faces increasing pressure from timber extraction and commodity production and trade, which are vital sectors supporting economic development. The following four key themes emerged from the stakeholder discussions.
Uneven business readiness for the EUDR
There isa clear divide in timber supply chains between large (often European-owned) companies with established certification systems and smaller, locally owned businesses with limited resources and capacity. Many larger companies view the EUDR as a manageable opportunity because they already have systems in place that will help them comply. By contrast, many smaller operators expect the extra administrative work to be a significant challenge. Some are considering shifting their exports to less regulated markets, while others are exploring partnerships with bigger companies to help them navigate the new requirements.
The EUDR is already reshaping timber supply chains
The EU remains the most profitable market for timber exporters in the Congo Basin, but it presents heightened barriers to entry. Asian markets are easier to access but offer lower prices. Meanwhile, a growing inter-African timber market is opening up new trade opportunities that could help retain economic value within the region. Since exporters have access to non-EU markets, some stakeholders were concerned that a “two-tier” system could develop that would undermine the forest-protecting aim of the EUDR. In one tier, timber that is demonstrably not linked to forest destruction would be exported to the EU, while in the other tier, timber that is linked to forest destruction would be exported elsewhere. In this scenario, known as market segregation, the EUDR may not significantly reduce forest destruction but could mainly influence where timber is sold.
Barriers to compliance and enforcement
Stakeholders in Cameroon and Gabon identified multiple barriers to complying with and enforcing the EUDR. One challenge for compliance is that every timber product placed on the EU market must be fully traceable – from the exact harvesting plot, through any processing, to the final product – to prove it is not linked to forest destruction. Another challenge can be bureaucratic delays in obtaining the harvest and trade permits, which are needed to prove the timber was legally harvested in the country of origin.
Enforcement of the EUDR could be limited by the capacities of governments and institutions in producer countries like Cameroon and Gabon. Another significant risk stakeholders identified was “commodity laundering”, whereby illegal timber could be processed in a third country before being placed on the EU market as a final product, thereby evading the EUDR restrictions. This is because, while raw materials are easier to trace and label, there is often minimum information on them embedded on the final products that utilize them—the example of imported wooden furniture from East Asia was used, where the country of manufacture is known, but the origin of the timber in it is not. This opens a window for non-compliant timber to be diverted into other markets, and ultimately enter the European market as a finalised product.
Building capacity for the EUDR can deliver benefits for all parties
The timber supply chain stakeholders in Cameroon and Gabon feel burdened by the administrative requirements of the EUDR, which is being implemented with limited consultation to date, and will face challenges if they want to comply. However, actors across the board believe that with appropriate resources and the right incentives and support mechanisms in place, both the public and private sector stakeholders could overcome these challenges.
The EUDR provides an opportunity to enable sustainable forest governance that can support economic development in the Congo Basin. However, realizing this potential will require the EU and EU-based companies to provide resources and assistance to producer countries to facilitate implementation. EU actors with leverage and resources must proactively provide incentives and support mechanisms. There is a particular need for targeted technical and financial support for small and medium enterprises to build capacity in sustainable forest management. The promise of higher EU market prices provides an incentive, but without special attention, smaller enterprises may become marginalized and be unable to comply with the requirements of the EUDR. For government regulators and monitoring agencies in producer countries, increased resources and capacity to oversee forest management would enable environmental and economic benefits to be realized through better protection and management of natural resources while also making it easier for actors across the supply chain to meet their legal obligations. Additionally, EU policymakers will need to address concerns about weak enforcement capacity and potential commodity laundering through third countries to prevent undermining the EUDR’s effectiveness and further disadvantaging compliant operators.
Authors (alphabetical): Louis Brijmohun[2], Heli Sihvonen[3]and Juan Manuel Vargas[4]
Ever wondered what goes into making your favorite chocolate bar, shampoo, pet food, bedroom closet or toilet paper? You might be surprised to discover they could hide some secret ingredients: a pinch of deforestation and a dash of forest degradation. Many everyday products are made using imported commodities like cocoa, palm oil, soy, or wood, which cause deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics and subtropics. Overall, one-quarter of tropical forest loss is linked to expanding agriculture for export, and losing a forest means losing the beneficial ecosystem services it provides, such as carbon sequestration, wood production, or water purification.
Consumption of everyday products in Europe can drive significant conversion of natural ecosystems in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and Côte d’Ivoire. But along with European consumers, many other stakeholders globally affect forest destruction and conservation, like other consumer markets, companies along globalized supply chains, policymakers, public agencies enforcing laws, local populations with different rights and access to land use, and civil society aiming to safeguard the environment. This means that forests face multiple interests and pressures, challenging their governance.
The international community has not agreed on globally valid laws on forests and land use, although many public policies and private regulations from national to international levels try to tackle these urgent issues. In Europe, policymakers seek to reduce the EU’s role in commodity-driven deforestation with the new EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), which obliges companies in the EU to ensure that their sourcing of seven key agricultural and forest commodities does not directly cause deforestation and forest degradation. However, rather than becoming a global game changer for forests, this could merely result in “cleaning up” of supply chains for the EU market, according to new research by CLEVER, a research project funded by the EU. This means that in a globalized world, even if the EUDR was to be implemented strictly according to the rules, so that all EU supply chains became perfectly deforestation- and land degradation-free, different spillover effects in these markets would still limit what global reductions in deforestation and forest degradation this move could achieve. For instance, commodity markets could be segregated, so that the ‘deforestation-free’ (and more expensive) products go to the EU, while less sustainable (and cheaper) ones go to other markets with no or fewer environmental safeguards. The EUDR could also weaken or delegitimize some well-functioning forest conservation policy mixes among Europe’s major trading partners, such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil. Furthermore, the EUDR poses governance challenges due to the way it was developed without seeking agreement of stakeholders outside the EU and sometimes misalignment with national policies in producing countries. This suggests that to tackle deforestation and forest degradation effectively, policy makers must carefully customize actions by taking into account existing policies.
Still, from a positive perspective, the EUDR sets an example that could influence other global consumer countries of agricultural and forest commodities to do the same: strictly regulating the import of products causing forest loss. This development could materialize through international cooperation and policy diffusion across companies and governments alike. Multilateral partnerships and societal pressure, such as trend setting by the civil society, can all support more forest-friendly supply chains.
The EUDR, while well-aligned with broader sustainability goals, introduces both regulatory opportunities and challenges for producer and consumer countries. To avoid unintended consequences, such as conflicting standards, better policy coordination is required. Although the EUDR closes a significant regulatory gap in requesting legal and deforestation- and land degradation-free agricultural and forest commodities, countries also need to come together to find workable solutions – such as supporting the lack of enforcement of existing domestic environmental regulations on the ground. Finally, the EUDR and private sector policies should not divert attention from traditional conservation measures, such as protected areas or payments for environmental services, as they remain key to combating deforestation at its source.
Authors (alphabetical): Laila Berning[1], Mathias Cramm[2], Metodi Sotirov[3], Rafaella Ferraz Ziegert[4], and Sven Wunder[5]
Contributors (alphabetical): Abubakar Shidiki[6], Claudia Azevedo-Ramos[7], Dario Schulz[8], Hassina Uwiringiyimana[9], Herman Zanguim[10], Lucie Temgoua[11], and Martin Tchamba[12]
Reviewers (alphabetical): Scilla Alecci[13], Alok Jha[14], Madeleine Ngeunga[15], Gustavo Magalhaes de Oliveira[16], Neus Sanjuan[17], and Vinicius Sassine[18]
What’s on your plate and in your house might be quietly clearing forests in the Amazon and the Congo Basin. The production of internationally traded agricultural and forest commodities is responsible for more than half of the global loss of forests and natural vegetation every year. To help reduce deforestation associated with the import of these products into the EU, the European Parliament passed the EU Deforestation Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR) in 2022. Set to take full effect by the end of 2025, the EUDR obliges all importers of soy, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, beef, forest products, and rubber – known as forest risk commodities – to provide proof that the production was legal according to national legislation in the producer country and not associated with any deforestation. However, new research based on expert assessments has raised doubts about whether the EUDR can effectively reduce or even slow down global forest loss:
First, in many producer countries, such as Brazil and Cameroon, the EU holds a relatively small market share of forest risk commodities. This means the vast areas heavily impacted by commodity production may not be addressed by the EUDR at all. At the same time, importers will then often be able to meet EU demand by buying from producers who do not engage in deforestation or from regions with a low deforestation risk, either within the same country or in other producer countries. Unless other major importing regions, such as China and the US, adopt similar policies, the EUDR alone would be likely to have little to no impact on reducing forest loss.
Second, the EUDR could weaken political support for existing domestic policies in producer countries that have effectively reduced deforestation caused by forest-risk commodity production. This has been observed, for example, in the case of Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium, which has lost crucial political backing from certain national agro-industry and state-level administrations. Inconsistencies between specific rules of the EUDR and the Moratorium provided opponents with new arguments to renegotiate the existing set of rules.
Third, the EUDR imposes additional reporting obligations on many actors along forest risk commodity value chains, including those with limited resources like small landowners. The associated costs could disproportionately hurt small producers, processing companies, and logistics providers.
EU lawmakers must closely monitor whether the EUDR will make any tangible contribution to reducing the loss of tropical forests. Otherwise, companies can hide the deforestation footprint by simply rerouting imports through another country or region before they reach the EU. At the same time, researchers and policymakers must find more affordable and viable ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of trade in agricultural and forest commodities, without harming vulnerable businesses in the producing countries. This could, for example, involve taxes on deforestation-linked commodities. The funds raised through the tax in the EU could be reinvested in producer countries to help protect and restore natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
Thanks to international trade, people and businesses in Europe have access to a wide range of agricultural and forestry products sourced from every corner of the globe. However, many of these products are not intended for direct human consumption. Instead, they serve as biofuels for vehicles, food for animals, or natural materials for everyday items like furniture and textiles. Two-thirds of the land used to produce these non-food products lies outside EU borders. Their production is often tied to the destruction of rainforests and other critical ecosystems in Southeast Asia, South America, and Sub-Saharan Africa. Forest loss causes not only the emissions of gases that contribute to climate change and global warming. The affected regions also lose biodiversity, such as valuable plant and animal species, due to habitat changes and pollution, resulting from the excessive and harmful use of agrochemicals. Research has shown that these environmental impacts have economic and social consequences for people in the affected regions and beyond. In short, deforestation can not just increase the likelihood of extreme weather events. The changing landscape can also worsen the living conditions of vulnerable communities and local agricultural productivity in the most affected areas of the world.
Many of these environmental and related socio-economic impacts could be reduced if the existing agricultural land in these regions were used more sustainably. To make this happen, we must overcome three obstacles.
First, gaps in our knowledge about biodiversity and the multiple causes that lead to its loss often prevent governments from developing and implementing effective policies that promote sustainable land use.
Second, many countries lack the infrastructure and financial means to maintain functioning authorities that effectively implement and enforce environmental regulations.
And third, some of these countries must address widespread poverty and food insecurity, including in rural areas. These issues often rank higher than environmental concerns on national policy agendas compared to many EU countries.
To overcome these obstacles, we need the support of science and research to inform policy-making at different levels in the EU and beyond. Research on biodiversity in combination with insights from economics is particularly important. Recent advances in biodiversity research have improved our understanding of where and why trade threatens biodiversity. This enables decision-makers to design policies that achieve higher conservation impacts at lower costs. Evidence from economics shows that both exporting and importing countries benefit from trade in agricultural and forest commodities. Just because the environmental damage linked to trade occurs mostly in exporting countries, we cannot expect these countries to address them alone. Instead, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, particularly Goal 16 – Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions and Goal 17 – Partnerships for the Goals, imply principles of equitable and non-discriminatory benefit and burden sharing. This calls for societies and policymakers in industrialized economies to become more aware of their shared responsibility in making international trade beneficial for both people and the environment. Policymakers in importing regions, like the EU, can apply a range of measures to do so. One solution is international cooperation through knowledge and technology transfer, supporting environmental monitoring and effective law enforcement. Economic research also increasingly supports incentive-based mechanisms. This includes, for example, international payments for ecosystem services and related finance mechanisms, such as import taxes that vary depending on how the goods are produced, whether they are made in ways that protect forests, avoid harmful chemicals, or reduce the destruction of rich biodiversity in tropical forests.
Insights from CLEVER Researcher Rafaella F. Ziegert on the EUDR, land-use and policy interaction in Brazil
What happens when global trade regulations meet local realities? In this video interview, Rafaella Ferraz Ziegert, a researcher with the CLEVER project and PhD candidate at the University of Freiburg, shares her perspective on the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) — the first transnational policy designed to reduce the EU’s contribution to deforestation and land degradation abroad. While the EUDR aims to protect forests, it may also lead to unintended consequences in producer countries like Brazil, especially when it overlaps or conflicts with existing national policies.
Rafaella draws on her experience conducting environmental impact assessments across Brazil— a vast country with abundant land, yet one that faces intense pressure to meet multiple demands: food production, climate regulation, carbon storage, and mineral extraction. The central challenge? How to manage land use in a way that supports both people and the planet.
Instead of framing it as a conflict between forest conservation and agriculture, Rafaella sees it as a “nexus”—a space where solutions can emerge when sectors work together. Through CLEVER, she investigates how land-use policies and regulations interact, and which combinations can lead to more sustainable outcomes.
Reflecting on her research, she shares three key takeaways:
Territorial regulations may yield more sustainable results than specific supply chain policies.
Transnational policies should build on efforts, systems and standards already in place in producer countries.
Inclusive policy making—involving all actors in the different types of public and private regulation—is essential.
Want to learn more about CLEVER’s work and how EU regulations influence biodiversity abroad? Watch the video interview below:
We are pleased to announce that our upcoming Conference and Public Panels on “Mainstreaming Biodiversity in Policy Making”, taking place on June 4th and 5th, 2025, in Brussels. This two-day event brings together nine EU-funded research projects—CLEVER, BioValue, Rainforest, Bamboo, Bedrock, BioAgora, Bionext, BioTraces, and TRANSPATH—which are working collectively to generate actionable knowledge on how European economies can thrive while reducing their impact on biodiversity both within the EU and globally. Together with policy makers, scientists, business leaders, and civil society representatives,the conference aims to explore practical strategies for integrating biodiversity into decision-making, particularly in relation to EU initiatives like the Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products.
Day 1 – June 4 (In-person only)
The first day (09:00 to 17:30 CET) will feature a full programme of sessions at the science-policy interface covering a range of tropical issues, including methods for assessing biodiversity impacts, developing effective conservation pathways, and advancing policy through transformative planning and governance approaches. We will also address the integration of knowledge across science, policy, and society, highlighting the role of collaborative networks in driving systemic change for biodiversity. The agenda includes presentations, interactive workshops, and discussions designed to foster cross-sector collaboration and enhance policy relevance.
Day 2 – June 5 (In person and Publicly livestreamed)
The second day (09:00 to 13:30 CET) will present a synthesis of key insights from Day 1, followed by panel discussions focused on mainstreaming biodiversity into local and regional policy-making within the EU, and on strategies for reducing the EU’s global biodiversity footprint. These sessions aim to promote open and inclusive dialogue on the role of biodiversity in shaping sustainable and resilient policies across Europe and beyond.
Panel I: How to mainstream biodiversity for policy making at local/regional scale in the EU – BIOVALUE
Nature and biodiversity need to be made endogenous to sectoral policies, with spatial planning enabling the territorialization, and therefore an integrated governance, of sectoral policies. It is therefore an ideal governance mechanism to promote an integrated alignment and coherence of sectoral policies to enhance the value of biodiversity.
Panelists: Humberto Rosa (DG ENV), Christian Albert (Leibniz Universität Hannover), Gilles Doignon (DG R&I), Henrique Pereira (iDIV). Moderator: Maria Partidario (IST UniLisboa)
Panel II: Reducing EU footprints in the world – CLEVER
The goal of this panel debate is to discuss alternative solutions (and related challenges) for the EU and its trading partners to continue beneficial trade relationships while reducing the undesirable impacts of trade on the environment and biodiversity, in particular.
Panelists: Luiza Bruscato (RTRS), Gilles Doignon (DG R&I), Louise Simon (Climate & Company), Alberto Schnell (IUCN), Anne Teller (Formerly DG ENV). Moderator: Jan Börner (Uni Bonn)
Online attendance (Day 2 only) is open to all and will include a live stream of the full programme on June 5th from 09:00 to 13:30 CET. Register for online attendance.
We look forward to your participation in this collaborative and forward-looking event.
The Horizon Europe Cluster Transformative Change for Biodiversity
The Horizon Europe Cluster on Transformative Change for Biodiversity is a strategic initiative within the EU’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme. It aims to address the root causes of biodiversity loss through systemic, societal transformation, focusing on integrating biodiversity considerations into various sectors by promoting fundamental changes in economic, social, and governance structures. The cluster supports interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research projects that explore innovative pathways for halting and reversing biodiversity decline, emphasising the need for inclusive, equity-driven approaches. This collective effort supports the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 and contributes to the broader global agenda for transformative change in biodiversity conservation.
Launched in October 2021, the cluster has since fostered collaboration among multiple projects to maximise impact and facilitate knowledge sharing. The cluster originally included 11 Horizon Europe-funded projects, and it is now expanding with new projects funded by the European Commission on the same topics. These projects collectively work towards developing actionable knowledge and tools to implement transformative changes across Europe and beyond.
