STI for biodiversity: Harnessing technology and innovation partnerships
Workshop co-organised by the Italian National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC) and the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP)
29 February-1 March 2024
Institute of Marine Sciences (ISMAR-CNR), Venice, Italy (and via Zoom)
Website: https://oe.cd/BiodiversityWorkshopVenice
Overview of the workshop and key takeaways
Introduction to the workshop
Biodiversity – which refers to the variety of living organisms on Earth – sustains many economic activities and matters critically for human well-being,including for the provision of food and clean water.
Yet,biodiversityisdecliningatanunprecedentedratebecauseofresource overexploitation, climate change, pollution and invasive species (OECD, 2021[1]). The global population of wild species has fallen by 60% over the last 40 years (IPBES, 2019), and over onemillion plant and animal species – constituting a quarter of the world’s species – are at risk of extinction (Brondizio et al., 2019[2]).
Science, technology and innovation (STI) can play an important role in supporting biodiversity efforts. Using the latest cutting-edge technologies and collaborative approaches across countries can support the conservation of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of natural resources. STI applications in the field of biodiversity include remote sensing technologies to gather data about the Earth’s physical, chemical and biological features of ecosystems, map protected areas, and monitor changes; the implementation of technologies for impact mitigation and ecosystem restoration, such as vertical farming and precision agriculture, as well as financial innovations (fintech), such as digitised biodiversity credits.
Techno-industrial and other innovations, however, can also have (often overlooked) external adverse effects on the environment. Natural capital, being a public good, is often (ab)used for economic growth. At the same time, where environmental protection is recognised asimportant,it isoftenseparatedfrom innovationpolicy,aimingtoleavenature protected from the effects of techno-industrial innovation, rather than harnessing innovation for environmental protection.
STI policies have moved from mainly underpinning productivity, competitiveness and economic growthto also addressing societal challenges such as the green transition but less so biodiversity.
Objectives of the workshop
This workshop explored specific considerations for STI action on biodiversity at local, national and global levels.
With the goal to generate learnings and insights on how STI policy and technology and innovation partnerships can support biodiversity, the event highlighted perspectives and evidence from relevant academic and policy institutions in Italy, notably expertise being developed through the partnerships under the auspices of the National Biodiversity Future Centre, as well as insights from other OECD countries.
The workshop contributes to informing the Multi-Stakeholder High Level Dialogue that will precede the Ministerial Level Meeting of the OECD Committee on Scientific and Technological Policy (CSTP) on 23-24 April 2024. It also provides useful insights for the OECD Expert Group on harnessing innovation for biodiversity as it shapes its future agenda.
Key takeaways
For STI policies to address the ambitious goals of the twin green and digital transitions, a setofpolicy approaches isrequired assummarisedinFigure 1 Suchimperatives also apply to biodiversity – itself a key element of the green transition.
Figure 1. Five key STI policy approaches and tools for transitions
Key takeaways from the discussionsthat are important to emphasise under each include the following (see further details in Table 1):
• Directionality takeaway: Re-evaluate the place for biodiversity on green STI policy agendas.
While biodiversity is an element of green transitions, the net-zero target dominates on STI agendas. This results in STI policies for green development disregarding potential synergies and trade-offs that need to be carefully considered. However, the inclusion of biodiversity objectives should not result in diluting actions for the green transition as can be the case when too many goals are set.
• Coordinated government takeaway: The development of internationally agreed biodiversity targets and the creation of infrastructures to track performance would be major milestones.
International cooperation is needed for the implementation of the goals and targets set by the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), which was adopted in 2022. The development of internationally agreed biodiversity indicators akin to CO2 targets would support targeting progress. Establishing effective governance systems to coordinate action at global level and leveraging globally shareddatainfrastructuresto trackdevelopments andcontributions ofSTIsolutions is essential .
• Agility and experimentation takeaway: Integrate biodiversity considerations in STI programmes and monitor their performance leveraging technical possibilities
Successful contributions of STI to biodiversity objectives will ultimately require they are included in policy programmes aimed at reaching green transitions. Their effective inclusion also critically relies on monitoring their performance. Digital technologies facilitate gathering, sharing and analysing data and should be leveraged as much as possible, also for policy purposes.
• Stakeholder engagement takeaway: Raise business and citizen engagement in STI for biodiversity, building on public-private STI partnership experiences. Businesses and citizens often ignore the risks of degraded ecosystems and biodiversity loss for wellbeing and economic activities. Raising awareness and engaging them in research and innovation activities on biodiversity is an important element to motivate them to support biodiversity preservation. STI partnerships between research institutions, industry and civil society are uniquely placed in contributing to biodiversity preservations provided they engage widely, in a crossdisciplinary way and effectively. Governments’ co-funding will be important for their effective operations (OECD, 2020[4]).
• Fostering breakthrough innovation takeaway: Establish ambitious demand-side STI policies to incentivise biodiversity-friendly innovations
Governments are uniquely placed to support demand for biodiversity friendly innovationstocomplementpoliciessupportingresearchandinnovationinthisfield. By embeddingbiodiversityrequirementsinto publicprocurement processes,andby establishing standards and regulations for biodiversity conservation and uses, governments could incentivise the development of solutions and markets that align with biodiversity goals and foster a culture of innovation that prioritizes environmental sustainability.
Other insights from the discussionsacross these dimensions for transformative STIpolicies are summarized in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Key messages for STI policy makers
Directionality
- Biodiversity in policy agendas for the green transition: Biodiversity often remains sidelined in green policy agendas, with much emphasis placed on CO2 reduction. As a key dimension of green development, biodiversity needs to be explicitly considered and trade-offs and complementarities decided.
- Clear policy goals: Set clear, ambitious goals for biodiversity conservation to guide policy direction and stakeholder efforts that is integrated in the wider green transition and socio-economic development agenda. The establishment of additional targets should not dilute green goals but rather reinforce them and steer research and innovation towards more desirable directions.
Coordinated government
- International coordination of consultations and efforts, including also engagement countries at different stages of development.
- International agreements and standards: Leverage international agreements and targets (such as the CBD) to provide direction and momentum for national and local efforts.
- Integration of biodiversity objectives across policy areas: Integrate biodiversity considerations into a broader range of policies, beyond those traditionally associated with environmental protection.
- Multilevel governance: Coordination across different levels of government (local, national, and international) to address biodiversity effectively is critical. Fragmented efforts are less effective.
- Government funding and support: Provide government funding to support long-term biodiversity initiatives at local, national and global levels, esp. where market mechanisms do not generate demand for biodiversity preservation
Agility and experimentation
- Monitoring and evaluation: Implement robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to track biodiversity developments of relevant STI-related actions and policies.
- Policy adaptiveness and innovation: Policies need to be adaptable and responsive to new scientific findings and societal needs related to biodiversity. Innovative approaches may consist in funding models that first support pilots and then offer scaling successful experiences.
- Innovative Financing Models: Explore innovative financing models (e.g. biodiversity conservation trust funds, development of biodiversity-friendly markets and fiscal incentive schemes for businesses) to support biodiversity projects, allowing for experimentation and scaling of successful initiatives.
- Digital tools for policymaking: Use digital tools and data analytics to enhance policymaking agility and informed decision-making in biodiversity conservation.
- Stakeholder engagement
- Inclusive dialogue: Involve stakeholders from civil society, businesses, indigenous and local communities in biodiversity conversations and incorporate perspectives received into decision-making processes.
- Importance of multidisciplinarity: Recognise of the differences in languages across fields, and the need to combine research methods and tools.
- Support for public-private partnerships involving research and industry: Many examples (e.g. AI-based bird monitoring around wind turbines, DNA tech) showcase the potential for successful STI partnerships in the field of biodiversity.
- Public awareness and education: Enhance public awareness and education on biodiversity issues to create a supportive environment for directed policy and action.
Fostering breakthrough innovation
- Strategic research and innovation: Direct research and innovation efforts towards areas with the highest potential for positive biodiversity impacts as part of responsible research agendas.
- Support for innovation ecosystems: Create ecosystems that support innovation in biodiversity where they have high potential, including incubators, accelerators, and networks connecting researchers, startups, and investors.
- Regulatory flexibility: Consider the regulatory environment and possibilities for fast-tracking approvals that can support biodiversity conservation technologies.
- Investments in data collection and integration: Avoid duplication of data collection efforts.
Welcome and introduction to the workshop
Mario Sprovieri, Director of the Institute of Marine Science - National Research Council of Italy (ISMAR-CNR) and host of the event, opened the workshop by welcoming participants in their research facilities in Venice.
Luigi Fiorentino, President of the National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC), presented the NBFC as Italy's most ambitious biodiversity research and innovation project to date. Established and funded by the Italian National Recovery and Resilience Plan (PNRR), the Center has received funding of EUR 320 million for three years, from 2023 to 2025. He emphasised its significant focus on monitoring, conservation, restoration, and valorisation of Italian and Mediterranean biodiversity, highlighting the close relationship between Italy and biodiversity.
Alessandra Colecchia, Head of Science and Technology Policy Division of the OECD, explained that the event isextremelytimelyin view ofthe upcomingMeeting at Ministerial Level of the OECD Committee for Scientific and Technological Policy on 23-24 April in Paris. The Meeting looks to deliver an action-oriented Declaration calling on major stakeholders to endorse an STI policy agenda that addresses sustainability transitions and the responsible development of science and technology. She also noted that one of the Multi-Stakeholder Session preceding that Ministerial meeting will focus on “Partnerships for climate change and biodiversity”, making this workshop particularly important for working out the core themes.
Göran Marklund, Deputy Director General at VINNOVA and Chair of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) initiated the discussion by posing a series of thought-provoking questions for exploration during the workshop. These questions included inquiries such as the potential role of STI in addressing biodiversity challenges as part of its green development agenda in addition to the goal to be a carbonfreeeconomy.Healso askedparticipantstoconsider actionablestepsthepolicy community can take.
Caroline Paunov, Head of the Secretariat of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP), introduced the workshop as part of the OECD activity “Harnessing innovation for biodiversity”. She placed the topic of the workshop in the context of current STI policy debates, using the framework of key imperatives for STI policyfor transitions presentedinarecent OECDreport (seeFigure 1above) (Arnold et al., 2023[3]).
Session 1. What role for biodiversity in STI green transition policies?
Session 1 discussed the relevance of biodiversity in STI policy agendas and the rationale for STI to contribute to the preservation and restoration of the environment (Figure 2).
2. Speakers of session 1
Alberto Di Minin, Professor, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Chief Innovation Officer NBFC and Vice-Chair of the OECD TIP Working Party, highlighted the rapid pace of integration of sustainable development and net-zero initiatives in global agendas, some of whichalsofocusedon biodiversity.Heemphasisedthat cross-countryknowledgeexchange to advance policy frameworks is important to fulfil the ambitions of those agendas.
Prof.Di Mininintroduced the NBFC's objectives (Figure 3), which encompass establishing a collaborative network of researchers and resources, optimizing data collection processes, fostering interdisciplinary connections between scientific and biodiversity domains, and establishing a central hub for stakeholders to convene, both physically and digitally.
3. Goals of the National Biodiversity Future Centre (NBFC)
Source: Presentation of Alberto Di Minin
Matti Pihlajamaa, Senior Scientist at VTT, Finland, emphasised the critical need to reassess the rationales underpinning STI policies. He pointed out that the conventional "innovation for growth" STI logic often conflicts with biodiversity objectives. The focus on the
green transition has also not resulted in biodiversity getting policy attention. He attributed some of this lack of attention to the primary focus on economic interests and an overreliance on technological solutions that are more directly associated with the net-zero goal than biodiversity.
Mr. Pihlajamaa also stressed the importance of fostering collaboration across diverse sectors of the economy despite the challenges, since deep transformation requires more than technology and can only operate if accompanied by social innovation and, eventually, institutional as well as cultural changes (Figure 4). This, he argued, requires notably working with key sectors – such as agriculture, forestry, fishing – when it comes to considering innovation for biodiversity.
Finally, he also underscored the necessity for STI policy to consider potential adverse effects, frequently overlooked in current formulations, which could have substantial implications for biodiversity conservation.
Figure 4. What kind of innovation for biodiversity?
Source: Presentation of Matti Pihlajamaa
Julie Olivier, Science-Policy Officer, Project Management Jülich for the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research, spoke about the importance of preserving ocean biodiversity. She noted that national green policies often did not set focus on ocean biodiversity. She drew attention to the unsustainable practices prevalent in the seafood industry and the detrimental effects innovations in that sector can have on marine biodiversity. At the same time, technologies can help monitor developments and produce data-driven decision-making to address problems, and contribute in this way to the seafood value chain to address biodiversity concerns. Moreover, she stressed the necessity for innovative solutions in the fishing and shipping industries that prioritize biodiversity upfront (Figure 5).
Source: Presentation of Julie Olivier
LarsDinesen,Senior Advisor,Intergovernmental Science-PolicyPlatform onBiodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) in Denmark, introduced Biodiversa+, the European cofunded biodiversity partnership supporting excellent research on biodiversity. He elaborated on the partnership’s dual focus of advancing understanding of biodiversity and promoting the development of nature-based solutions (i.e. solutions that are inspired and supported by nature, and simultaneously provide environmental, social and economic benefits and help build resilience, e.g. restoring mangroves to protect coastlines from erosion, or creating green roofs and green corridors in urban areas) (Figure 6). He underscored Biodiversa+ work on research-industry collaboration in the field of biodiversity,aswell as onmappingthe current research andinnovationlandscapeand gaps. It has also analysed, in collaboration with Network Nature (a project funded by the European Commission under the Horizon 2020 programme), the economic benefits associated with nature-based solutions and strategies for their replication and upscaling.
Finally, Mr Dinesen also talked about Denmark’s proactive stance in this field, citing notably the new Green Tax Reform of 2024, including the introduction of a new CO2 tax for companies and changes in energy taxes that apply to fossil fuels, as core element for Denmark’s ambitious target of achieving a 70% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.Yet moreis needed tointegratebiodiversityinpolicymaking,which has beenlimited to the establishment of the Danish Biodiversity Council (an independent panel of experts aimed at providing policy advice to government) and the creation of protected areas. Six universities are working to support such integration by producing reports aimed at conveying the messages from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) to national policy makers.
6. Biodiversa+ Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA) cross-cutting themes
Source: Presentation of Lars Dinesen
Session 2a. What is different about innovation for biodiversity? Global engagement
Session2aexplored theroleofglobal STIpartnershipsformonitoring,protecting, restoring and valorising biodiversity, the challenges STI actors face in advancing on biodiversity objectives and how policy can help addressing them (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Speakers of session 2a
Claire Jolly, Head of Ocean Economy and Space Economy Unit at the OECD, provided an overview of current frameworks for global cooperation in biodiversity research and innovation, which are:
• International agreements, such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its protocols;
• International fundingandcapacity buildingefforts,suchas theGlobal Environment Facility (GEF), to support programmes in developing countries; and
• Common command and control instruments, which are essential for setting legal boundaries and standards for biodiversity conservation and uses.
She explained that while global cooperation is already occurring in many fields (Figure 8), moreefforts areneeded toclosegapsinsynergiesamongglobalinitiatives andinternational efforts.
Note: Presentation of Claire Jolly
Ms Jolly also discussed the many benefits of innovation collaborations in the ocean economy sector – involving academia and industry actors –, notably opportunities for exploiting synergies, bringing biodiversity-friendly goods to market and diffusing knowledge more widely (Figure 9) (OECD, 2019[4]). At the same time, she pointed to a set ofchallengesthatrangefromintellectualpropertyissueswhentheprivatesectorisinvolved to regulatory challenges and different “languages” across science and industry, a wellknown set of issues to STI policy makers as they aim to increase the uptake of new ideas and their transformation into innovations (Guimón and Paunov, 2019[5]; OECD, 2019[6]; Kreiling and Paunov, 2021[7]).
Moreover, Ms Jolly highlighted the importance of “command and control” instruments in biodiversity conservation. These are instruments that set legal boundaries and standards for biodiversity conservation and uses, e.g. through the use of protected area designations, species protection regulations and habitat protection laws. They can be effective in protecting species and ecosystems from significant threats, but their success critically depends on adequate enforcement, sufficient funding and the political and social context within which they are applied.
Given the myriad benefits of collaboration, facilitating the involvement of international partners in projects and research infrastructures for testing and implementing innovative monitoringmethods, alongside providing financial support for initiatives suchas taxonomy platforms and databases, is equally essential.
Figure 9. Ocean economy networks: what are the benefits and challenges?
Source: Presentation of Claire Jolly
Grégoire Dubois, Head of the Knowledge Centre for Biodiversity of the European Commission, suggested that a new governance system was needed in the field of biodiversity, as currently there are a multiplicity of actors in this field and no single entity with expertise across four essential pillars (policies, scientific competences, technological capacities, and funding). He stressed the difficulty of consolidating biodiversity informationatglobalscalecoherentlyandthenecessityofcollaborativeefforts.Thisiswhy efforts are underway for building a global network of interconnected national and regional biodiversity observation centres, in order to connect existing data repositories and avoid duplication of efforts (Figure 10). The European Commission is also proposing a Global Knowledge Support Service for Biodiversity (GKKSB) to be put in place for enhanced knowledge management coordination across all multilateral environmental agreements.
Figure 10. A Global Biodiversity Observation System (GBiOS): a global network of interconnected national and regional networks to assess biodiversity trends worldwide
Note: BON stands for Biodiversity Observation Network
Source: Presentation of Grégoire Dubois
Alessio Bonaldo, Professor at the University of Bologna, focused his intervention on biodiversity-friendly aquaculture (the farming of aquatic organisms, such as fish, seafood, and algae, in controlled environments for human consumption and other purposes). He highlighted EU actions undertaken to increasing and diversifying aquaculture while
mitigating its environmental impacts. He made three observations in this regard: first, efforts toincrease the efficiencyinaquacultureisoftenwin-win strategyinthatit improves productions and reduces environmental impacts at the same time; second, different tools and technologies (e.g. genetics, integrated systems, marine biotechs) can be combined together for a sustainable eco-intensificationof aquafarming; and third, fishfarmers can be motivated to invest in innovation also to increase the reputation of aquaculture as a sustainable and biodiversity-friendly supplier of blue healthy food.
Henrik Lange, Coordinator of invasive alien species at the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency and Co-Lead of Biodiversa+ WP4, focused on lessons learned from the Biodiversa+ partnership (Figure 11). He argued that long-term sufficient funding is behind thesuccess ofglobal partnerships.Oftenthefundingprovideddoesnotmatchthe ambitions of those partnerships. Moreover, breaking down silos and fostering dialogue between stakeholdersfrom researchorganisationsandindustryandpolicymakersremains important.
Source: Presentation of Henrik Lange
Issues raised during the following discussion include the importance of involving developing countries more in global STIpartnerships, so theycandevelopcapacities inthis field. Such capacities can in turn support economic development efforts. Moreover, involving local communities in biodiversity efforts, jointly with scientific and policy communities, is important but often neglected.
Session 2b. What is different about innovation for biodiversity? Local engagement
Session 2b explored engaging local actors, namely citizens, industry and universities, especiallyasregards STI collaboration and ways to create effective engagement to advance STI for biodiversity (Figure 12).
Massimo Labra, Professor at the University of Bicocca and NBFC Scientific Director, moderated and introduced the discussion. He stressed that responsible research and innovation in the field of biodiversity involves the whole of society (Figure 13).
13. Responsible Research and Innovation
Local actors should consequently be part of STI actions. Sharing territorial interventions with local partners can help in responding to needs and providing sustainable management over time if appropriated by the local community. This echoes insights from TIP work on societal engagement that had similarly concluded on the importance of engagement to respond to needs and for engagement (Paunov and Planes-Satorra, 2023[8]).
Prof. Giuseppe Gigli, Director of the National Research Council of Italy (CNR) Institute of Nanotechnology, on behalf of Prof. Maria Chiara Carozza, President of National Research Council of Italy (CNR), emphasised the importance of linking technology and biodiversity. Prof. Gigli argued that science and technology can produce important solutions to address biodiversity-related issues, but that the lack of priority given to it by STI policymakersand limited interdisciplinary collaboration did not providethe conditions for those solutions to develop.
Chiara Catalano, Researcher, National Research Council, Institute of Research on Terrestrial Ecosystems, highlighted the significance of Nature-Based Solutions (NbS) (see definition provided above), emphasising the pivotal role they play in addressing environmental challenges. She discussed the different roles that academic research, government, industry, and society have to play for the uptake of NbS (Figure 14). She also highlighted the critical importance of promoting standards in this domain (e.g. NbS requirements in terms of scalability, reduction of environmental impacts, reduction of chemical inputs, etc.). The NBS Italy Hub emerges as a commendable initiative for monitoring and enhancing the application of nature-based solutions. It acts as a “resonance chamber” for local initiatives and is a connection point for national stakeholders.
Figure 14. NbS in the context of the quadruple helix
Source: Presentation of Chiara Catalano
Hugo Pereira, Managing Director of GreenCoLab in Portugal, presented the concrete example of successful science-industry collaboration within the GreenCoLab platform (Figure 15). GreenCoLab uses biotechnological techniques to harnessthe potential ofalgae feedstocks for the production of goods such as food, textiles, nutraceuticals, cosmeceuticals, and agricultural products (e.g. biopesticides). The lab engages in efforts to address environmental challenges related to water treatment, nutrient recycling and CO2 mitigation.
Source: Presentation of Hugo Pereira
TheIndustrial BiotechnologyAlgal Bank(IBAB) at GreenCoLabillustratestheimportance of scientific inputs to developing market-oriented innovations in this field (Figure 16). By collecting industrially relevant strains in a common database, the potential for identifying new commercial sustainable applications increases.
16. Industrial Biotechnology Algal Bank at GreenCoLab
Source: Presentation of Hugo Pereira
Hellas Cena, Pro-Rector of the Third Mission at the University of Pavia, underlined the importance of partnerships to spur STI’scontributions to biodiversity. Policyinterventions, according to Ms. Cena, should consequently concentrate on fostering interdisciplinary research, promoting publicand private partnerships, providingregulatoryflexibility tospur innovation, and ensuring appropriate uses of intellectual property (IP) for collaboration. She also highlighted the intrinsic link between biodiversity and health, particularly through nutrition, and the vast opportunities this creates for research transfer and innovation (e.g. the application of novel bioactive compounds for medical and dietary applications). Fostering a collaborative ecosystem can catalyze breakthroughs in public health, sustainable agriculture, and food technology, contributing to both economic growth and environmental preservation.
Helena Freitas, Professor at the Centre for Functional Ecology of the University of Coimbra,outlinedmajor challengesin biodiversity conservation(Figure 17).In view ofthe need for action and the critical role technologies can play, she echoed the need for collaborations among tech companies, local communities, and research institutions for developing new digital technologies and business models to advance on the biodiversity conservation agenda.
Figure 17. Priorities and Recommendations for a Shared Biodiversity Conservation Agenda
Source: Presentation of Helena Freitas
Prof. Freitas then presented seven essential actions for tackling biodiversity conservation: solve, understand, collaborate, develop, support, train and communicate (Figure 18).
Prof. Freitas also pointed to the importance of transforming industries’ contributions by meansofthefollowingapproaches:categorisingbusinessandhumanactivitiescontributing to biodiversityloss and holding companiesaccountable alongthe value chain.
Figure 18. Key Actions to Push the Agenda Forward
Source: Presentation of Helena Freitas
Session 3. Industry engagement and the use of new technologies and data on biodiversity to inform innovation policy for biodiversity preservation
Session 3 focused on the role of the private sector in biodiversity efforts and the utilisation of new technologies to monitor and safeguard biodiversity (Figure 19).
Figure 19. Speakers of session 3
Donatella Spano, Full Professor at University of Sassari, discussed the NBFC’s efforts to develop a digital platform that aims to create and make accessible well-organised, shareable, and analysable data on the nexus between biodiversity and the ecosystem functions and services it provides. Aside from helping researchers and policy makers, the platform aims to showcase to society the tangible and intangible value of biodiversity (e.g. the interactions between land use, carbon and water cycle). She also highlighted that mainstreaming biodiversity in policy requires the development of adequate skills.
Helmut Gaugitsch, Head of Scientific Management Biodiversity at the Environment AgencyAustria,explainedthebiodiversityworkoftheAgencyatmultipleterritorial levels. At the international level, Austria engages in numerous networks (e.g. the European Network of Heads of Nature Conservation Agencies (ENCA)), with a focus on promoting conservation while ensuring fair sharing of benefits. At the national level, they provided the technical and scientifical basis for Austria’s biodiversity strategy for 2030. An important element of the strategy is the importance of monitoring biodiversity, for which a mix of conventional and innovative methods (e.g. remote sensing, eDNA) are used. They are also exploring innovative methods for biodiversity footprinting and ecosystem services evaluation, which are very challenging endeavours. Recognizing the importance of local context, they are collaborating with regions to implement biodiversity friendly policy agendas andintensifying collaboration with the privatesector (e.g.forestry, agriculture and other industries using biodiversity).
Søren Enghoff, Head of Regulatory Affairs at Spoor, Norway, provided a private sector perspective on the role of policy incentives to steer changes in business practices affecting biodiversity. Spoor’s software uses cutting-edge computer vision and AI to detect, track, and classify birds in wind farms to help developers and operators gain insights and guide mitigation measures.
Mr. Enghoff highlighted the importance of generating industry incentives for developing new technology solutions for biodiversity, combining strict regulatory requirements with adequate support schemes to help industry change (Figure 20). For instance, underwater
noise has been a major challenge for the offshore wind sector due to impacts on primarily marine mammals’ sensitive hearing organs. As Germany introduced permit requirements for noise levels, a sudden focus shift towards innovating new solutions occurred. Some tolerance to exceed the levels was accepted in the beginning, but later it became a hard requirement. Today, many solutions exist in the space of underwater noise. This highlights that regulators should have a mandate to stimulate the use of innovative technologies, while accepting some effectiveness tolerance levels to allow for technologies to mature and industries to adapt.
20. Ways to account for biodiversity impacts in innovation policy
Note: DEVEX stands for development expenditure.
Source: Presentation of Søren Enghoff
He also called for using technology neutral language in permits and policies to allow new technologies toenter the market and promote healthy competition for the best solution. The target rather than the way to get to the target should be set out by policy, withindustry then being in charge of identifying the right solutions.
Benjamin Barca, Head of Conservation at NatureMetrics (a technology company dedicated to measure and monitor nature-related impacts of businesses), talked about the complexity of measuring biodiversity, which is an abstract concept that cannot be simplified to a simple metric as it is highly context specific. NatureMetrics supports businesses assess biodiversity impacts throughout their lifecycles, as well as NGOs and governments to implement global biodiversity targets through the use of innovative technologies (e.g. eDNA, Earth Observations). He presented a successful project they conducted for the Scottish Government, aimed at testing the applicability of eDNA- based monitoring approaches for biodiversity assessment and reporting purposes across a broad range of habitat types in Scotland. This initiative showcases how innovative methodologies can help integrate biodiversity into policy frameworks.
Session 4. Breakout group discussion: Messages for the High-Level Multi- stakeholder Dialogue at the margins of the CSTP Ministerial
During the session, participants exchanged on inputs to convey to the Multi-Stakeholder High-Level Dialogue session on climate change and biodiversity of the OECD-CSTP Ministerial Meeting.
Group 1 was moderated by Jacopo Cricchio, Postdoc, Institute of Management, Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, and focused on STI partnerships for biodiversity
The discussion revolved around the issue of addressing the complex challenge of biodiversity preservation. This includes changing perspectives of firms and citizens
towards recognising that biodiversity conservation is a beneficial socio-economic investment. Embedding questions regarding biodiversity preservation in training and education is consequently important.
Discussants also agreed that to incentivise change, emphasis should extend beyond monetary rewards, focusing on promoting collaboration, information-sharing, and knowledge exchange between research, industry and civil society.
Although biodiversity conservation is a global challenge, its actions demand local intervention, necessitating robust involvement from local communities. The adoption of best practices from local communities collectively can in turn help address the global challenge of biodiversity preservation best.
Discussants also agreed that experimental approaches that can successfully promote the scalability of solutions should be promoted.
Group 2 was moderated by Sandra Planes-Satorra, Policy Analyst at the OECD, and focused on STI policymakers’ role as promoters and enablers of innovation to support biodiversity.
Participants agreed on the importance of demand-side policies to support innovation in this field, for instance by integrating biodiversity conditions into public procurement and allocating funds for infrastructure projects.
They also emphasised the need for introducing changes in incentive systems of researchers and universities, in order to reward those that contribute to biodiversity and other wellbeing objectives.
The discussion also touched upon policy directionality, advocating for mission-oriented approaches to direct resources towards biodiversity objectives as part of green transition goals.
Participants underscored the importance of learning from success cases from the past. For instance, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been key to expanding data collection efforts and raising awareness about climate change, which has triggeredalotofresearchinthisfieldoverthepastdecades.Asimilarpathcouldbeadopted for biodiversity preservation.
Furthermore, discussants stressed the significance of increasing public support for biodiversity policy action through education, awareness campaigns, and providing compelling data to inform them.
Session 5. Getting the private sector on board – business models for biodiversity action
Session5discussedopportunitiesandchallengesforbusiness dedicatedtobiodiversity,and what can innovation policy do to support them (Figure 21).
Figure 21. Speakers of session 5
Maria Chiara Pastore, Associate Professor at Politecnico di Milano, highlighted that for the private sector to be involved initiatives must be designed to present a clear business case to attract private sector involvement. Private sector engagement also often requires projects scale up for them to be profitable.
She also pointed out that Italy’s public sector has undergone important changes with changes of government, affecting the longer-term commitment of the public sector to biodiversity preservation as partners of the private sector. Moreover, Prof. Pastore stressed the need for a shift in mindset among stakeholders to recognize the intrinsic value of biodiversity.
Martin Kathriner, Sustainability Strategist, Biodiversity Digital Academy, Digital Switzerland, presented the Biodiversity Digital Academy, programme that aims to support start-ups in biodiversity and digital fields. It connects young companies with large private firmslikeGoogleandMicrosoft formentorshipinthisfield.Keyinsightsfromtheinitiative included a recognition of shifting agendas in decision making in corporations due to geopolitical uncertainties, with biodiversity becoming less of a priority. A decrease in the amount of venture capital funding for biodiversity projects poses a further challenge. He also emphasised the necessity for clear push factors to drive progress. For instance, while clear CO2 targets exist to tackle climate change, the equivalent does not exist in the case of biodiversity. This imbalance in target setting has also influenced less attention is paid to biodiversity conservation efforts as compared to achieving net-zero goals.
Finally, Mr. Kathriner underscored the importance of linking biodiversity with business resilience. By making businesses understand that their continuity is at stake if biodiversity is not preserved, they are much more likely to undertake action in this area. This requires access to comprehensive and reliable data on biodiversity trends and impacts.
Yann Verstraeten, Managing Consultant, Biodiversity and Climate Policy and Action, ICF, highlighted the failure to fully incorporate nature's value into market transactions and emphasised the importance for businesses to embrace biodiversity to seize new opportunities (Figure 22). This he argued requires a fundamental change of mindsets, from business-as usual towards a net-zero, nature positive and just future.
Source: Presentation from Yann Verstraeten
Mr. Verstraeten also identified numerous challenges hindering progress in this domain and requiring policy responses. These challenges encompassed the lack of standardised methods for quantifying biodiversity, the necessity for societal consensus on defining a desirable ecological state, and insufficient and inadequate data and tool availability to track developments.
Supporting the development of robust, credible and transparent markets for nature-based solutions (e.g. standards of proof for biocredits – a newmarket innovation that would work similarly to carbon credits, as a measurable and traceable unit of biodiversity that can be traded and sold for investment in biodiversity conservation) should also be a priority.
Mariachiara Chiantore, Professor of Ecology at the University of Genova, focused on biodiversity recovery, particularly seabeds and marine habitats. Monitoring and measuring the performance of restoration actions was also highlighted as essential, alongside the promotion of biodiversity-friendly aquaculture for the creation of new blue job opportunities and business models (Figure 23). She also spoke about several challenges suchasregulationsthatprohibitimplementingnewtechnologiesforrecoveryprojects,local mistrust in science to address challenges, and the lack of business plans to prove reliability toindustry. Shehighlightedtheimportance ofengaginglocal communities inthe process to build trusted relations and address regulatory, business and societal opposition to biodiversity preservation efforts.
Figure 23. Biodiversity-friendly aquaculture
Source: Presentation of Mariachiara Chiantore
References
Arnold, E. et al. (2023), “Navigating green and digital transitions: Five imperatives for effective STI policy”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/dffb0747-en
Brondizio, E. et al. (2019), Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3831673
Guimón, J. and C. Paunov (2019), “Science-industry knowledge exchange: A mapping of policy instruments and their interactions”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 66, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/66a3bd38-en.
Kreiling, L. and C. Paunov (2021), “Knowledge co-creation in the 21st century: A crosscountry experience-based policy report”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 115, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/c067606f-en
OECD (2021), “Biodiversity, natural capital and the economy: A policy guide for finance, economic and environment ministers”, OECD Environment Policy Papers, No. 26, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1a1ae114-en.
OECD (2020), A Comprehensive Overview of Global Biodiversity Finance, https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/biodiversity/report-a-comprehensiveoverview-of-global-biodiversity-finance.pdf
OECD (2019), Rethinking Innovation for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264311053-en
OECD (2019), University-Industry Collaboration : New Evidence and Policy Options, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/e9c1e648-en
[3]
[2]
[6]
[8]
[1]
[4]
[5]
[7]
Paunov, C. and S. Planes-Satorra (2023), “Engaging citizens in innovation policy: Why, when and how?”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 149, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/ba068fa6-en.
This workshop was co-organized by the Italian National Biodiversity Future Center (NBFC) and the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP), and hosted by the Institute of Marine Sciences – National Research Council (ISMAR-CNR) in Venice.
The organizing team included: Alberto Di Minin and Jacopo Cricchio (Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies and NBFC), Caroline Paunov, Sandra Planes-Satorra and Isabella López Trejos (OECD), Mario Sprovieri and Simone Redolfi Bristol (ISMAR-CNR).
This summary document was prepared by Caroline Paunov, Sandra Planes-Satorra, Isabella López Trejos, and Jacopo Cricchio.