Ideas from the speakers
The session opened with five-minute provocations challenging assumptions about how nature, the economy and society interact. Rather than treating biodiversity as a niche issue, the speakers presented it as the foundation of wellbeing and economic resilience, moving from global science and finance to birds, plants and forest restoration, before inviting audience debate on what must change.
The first provocation framed business and biodiversity within the IPBES loop of society, economy and nature: social drivers shape economic activity that pressures nature, which in turn feeds back benefits to both. Through a nexus of health, water, biodiversity, climate and food, solutions must create co-benefits via interconnected governance and transformative societal change. On the economic side, the Business and Biodiversity Assessment stresses business impacts and dependencies, with US$105 trillion in global GDP including US$7.3 trillion in nature-negative flows, compared with US$500 billion linked to Target 18. While 55% of economic activity depends on nature, biodiversity funding is nearing US$230 billion (plus US$200 billion under Target 19), whereas climate finance is approaching US$1.8 trillion annually. This points to the need for finance to reinvest in natural and social capital through true cost accounting and polluter-pays principles.
The second provocation focused on bird conservation and its threefold mission: inform, inspire and unite. The aim is to build societies that value nature culturally, not just scientifically. Of 1,914 migratory species, 40% are declining and over 200 are globally threatened. New partnerships, particularly with development banks, aim to scale efforts across 50 million waterbirds, 200 species, 2 million hectares and 11 countries. Civil society collaboration remains vital, though progress continues to lag behind the rate of environmental loss. “Nostalgia is not a strategy,” the speaker noted, calling for faster, systemic change.
The third provocation turned to plant science, framed by “Healthy Plants, Healthy People, Healthy Planet.” Plants underpin food security, medicine and biodiversity, yet less than 1% of over 500,000 plant genomes have been mapped. More resilient plant systems could reduce agriculture’s carbon footprint while protecting insects and ecosystems. Speakers emphasised the need to integrate discovery science with practical applications, develop robust biodiversity and health metrics, and better coordinate food, climate and nature policies to ensure synergies rather than trade-offs. The overarching vision was to produce sufficient nutritious food while strengthening ecosystems, communities and long-term health.
The fourth provocation examined New Zealand’s “Recloaking Papatūānuku”, an initiative to restore its Earth mother through large-scale reforestation. With 65% of native forests cleared and 75% of species threatened, the goal is to restore 2.1 million of a potential 5.55 million hectares over the next decade. The initiative could sequester 300 million tonnes of CO₂ by 2050 at an estimated cost of US$20 per tonne, guided by the principle that “when the water and land are well, the people are well.”
Insights from the audience
Audience reflections called for stronger accountability, noting that nature destruction often remains more profitable than protection. Externalities were described as “cheating” – a failure to pay for what is taken – and participants argued they must be made visible to shift incentives. This would require a redefinition of value, with markets that reward nature-positive actions and penalise harmful ones, grounded in ecological limits rather than historical patterns of exploitation.
Radical collaboration emerged as another dominant theme. Participants suggested that too many actors attempting to address all aspects simultaneously can blur responsibility. Clearer mandates and shared goals could improve efficiency, while the inclusion of missing voices – particularly local and indigenous knowledge – would ensure interventions are context-specific. UNESCO’s work was cited as an example of recognising and integrating local perspectives to support legitimate, place-based solutions.
Finance and incentives were recurring concerns. Participants stressed that meaningful change must align with people’s needs and ensure fairness, so that those with less power do not disproportionately bear the costs of transition. While new markets are necessary, there must also be greater transparency about existing market failures. Communication gaps were also identified as a barrier, with science needing to reach decision-makers and communities more effectively to inform responses to both risks and opportunities. Shifting mindsets from abstract concern to lived experience was seen as critical for engagement.
The discussion concluded with calls to place nature on the balance sheet. Achieving this requires aligning norms, policy, markets and finance so that biodiversity becomes integral to value systems rather than peripheral. Participants underscored the need for collective and courageous leadership, prioritising systemic transformation over institutional gain, in order to redefine how economies value nature and manage risk for a more sustainable future.
