Transformative potential of action proposals in Finnish Red Lists from 1986 to 2019

To understand how knowledge can translate into interventions that advance transformative change, we can learn from a historical perspective. Red Lists provide critical knowledge regarding biodiversity decline, especially in Finland where broad assessments have been made regularly since the 1980’s. They deliver information on the threat status of species or ecosystems, but also proposals for action that guide conservation policy and have the potential to contribute to transformative change. We ask whether the transformative potential of these proposals has changed over time. We analyzed their contents qualitatively and quantitatively in seven Finnish Red Lists of Species or Ecosystems from 1986 to 2019. Our analysis framework relied on a prior assessment linking the Conservation action classification by the Conservation Measures Partnership to the Meadows’ sustainability leverage points, complemented by analyzing the share of cross-sectoral proposals. Our approach aligns with Termeer et al.’s recent framework that identifies three dimensions for transformative change: quick (historical perspective), in-depth (leverage points) and system-wide (cross-sectoral). Statistical analyses showed an increase in cross-sectoral proposals, but only a very small change toward deeper leverage actions (influencing root causes). Contrastingly, qualitative assessment of the way in which the actions were proposed showed trends toward more complex ensembles of actions and effectiveness of implementation, demonstrating a within-action-category change toward deeper leverage. The growing transformative potential could be both a driver and a consequence of a broader societal change, driven by the ongoing biodiversity loss, but inference of causality is beyond the reach of our analyses. Yet, as biodiversity loss is continuing, it is clear that recent cross-sectoral efforts have often failed to reach the deepest leverage points and the root causes of the crisis. Concurrently, the change has also been too slow. Red Lists could play a role in transformative change, but the engagement of actors across the society in devising the action proposals could be even more inclusive and cover expertise from social sciences and humanities to achieve deeper leverage. Our results also emphasize the importance of considering complementary dimensions of transformative change simultaneously to achieve a comprehensive understanding of viable paths toward societal change.