THEMATIC BRIEF: The success of an argument for biodiversity conservation depends on how it is properly adjusted to different stakeholders’ perceptions of the values of nature. This policy brief aims to provide some ways in which arguments can be tailored for the audience in order to increase their effectiveness in the biodiversity conservation process, based on the lessons learned in the 13 case studies of the BESAFE project and through discussions with stakeholders.

THEMATIC BRIEF: It is important to understand that policy-making is an ongoing and open-ended process. This brief focuses on the policy cycle approach which is a useful way to divide policy processes to several stages. It defines the stages of the policy cycle and explains how different types of biodiversity arguments can be used at each stage.

THEMATIC BRIEF: It is crucial to understand that the way in which an issue is presented matters. This brief focuses on framing which is a central concept in understanding and interpreting actors’ efforts to define and construct political issues. It defines the framing effect and explains how the effectiveness of arguments depends partly on how they are framed. In particular, positive framing (emphasising benefits) is often more effective than negative framing (focusing on threats and problems), especially when the framing is aligned to match the goals and interests of the target audience. The concept of ecosystem services is useful for framing arguments in a positive way, by emphasising the benefits of biodiversity conservation for humans.

THEMATIC BRIEF: This brief explains that having an insufficient capacity to argue – having weaknesses in our capability to define and achieve objectives in constructing, developing and communicating arguments – may impede effective argumentation for biodiversity conservation. We identify five key factors relevant to building effective arguments and use these to provide guidance to help develop capacity to argue successfully in different situations, involving different audiences.

THEMATIC BRIEF: This brief explains how biodiversity can contribute to recreation in many ways. The popularity and value of outdoor recreation can lead to powerful arguments for conservation. On the other hand, there can be conflict between the provision of recreational opportunities and conservation objectives.

THEMATIC BRIEF: BESAFE has empirically analysed the effectiveness of arguments for biodiversity conservation, by observing arguments at different policy stages, at different governance levels and among different stakeholder groups. The project has also considered potential effectiveness of arguments, drawing on informants’ views on the effectiveness of arguments and by studying the logic of arguments. This brief summarises ways to analyse the effectiveness of arguments and lessons from empirical analyses.

CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study of the UK water industry shows how arguments about ecosystem service values have helped the economic regulator of the water sector in England and Wales (Ofwat) to support water industry investments in catchment-level biodiversity conservation projects.

CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study describes the encroachment of urban development on a previously rural area and the underlying local urban planning process in Sibbesborg, within the Helsinki Metropolitan Area in Finland. The planning process was intended to stand out as a novel, sustainable planning philosophy, with sustainability targets for safeguarding and enhancing biodiversity and ecosystem services in the area. However, the case study illustrates the problems involved in attempting to overcome traditional planning conventions.

CASE STUDY BRIEF: This case study of argumentation processes explores argumentation effectiveness based on the relevance and credibility of the argument and arguer for the intended audiences and within different situations. By examining these argumentative interactions the findings indicate that identifying common ground contributes to effective outcomes by providing possibilities for mutual benefit. Where this is not possible, a strong policy framework is essential.