On 18 June 2019 a workshop dedicated to the role of development cooperation in biodiversity conservation in the global South was held in Ghent, Belgium, during the ALTER-NET–EKLIPSE conference ‘The European Union Biodiversity Strategy beyond 2020’. ALTER-NET is a network of biodiversity research institutes, and EKLIPSE is an EU networking project on ecosystem services. Mainstreaming biodiversity refers here to the inclusion of biodiversity across sectors—a necessity given the pervasiveness of impacts on biodiversity by different economic sectors and the role of biodiversity in provision of ecosystem services.

A range of European academics, Belgian and European Commission officials, and NGO representatives working at the biodiversity–development interface were invited to formulate an aid deliverer's perspective focused on two interlinked questions: (1) Should the EU biodiversity strategy guide the programmes of member states? (2) Has biodiversity mainstreaming been a priority or not?

Regarding the link between the supranational European and national levels, the current lack of harmonization between the EU and national governments, and the lack of biodiversity mainstreaming, were both highlighted. The unambitious, mainly project-based improvements in integrating biodiversity in European-funded agricultural projects in Africa were acknowledged, and it was noted that capacity building programmes and education for young scientists in the South are often perceived as already being sufficient, although they are not meeting demands at all career stages. The workshop recommended that capacity building needs to be continuously improved through collaborative North–South and South–South programmes. Opinions diverged regarding the desirability of translating elements of European biodiversity policies (e.g. the Natura 2000 network) to the global South, but all agreed that citizen science could be promoted as a tool for data collection and awareness raising. Supporting biodiversity mainstreaming was considered even more important than addressing the lack of formally protected areas, especially in highly biodiverse agricultural landscapes. An additional recommendation was that economic and social benefits of conserving biodiversity should also be highlighted (e.g. through nature-based solutions).

The workshop participants noted the lack of foresight, and the absence of a sense of urgency, among development actors as explanatory factors for the mixed success of biodiversity mainstreaming. Biodiversity is only considered a policy priority when its degradation is visible and directly hampers development, by which time action to repair damage can be ineffective and/or costly. The cost-effectiveness of early biodiversity mainstreaming was stressed, as well as the need to focus on prioritizing certain sectors (e.g. agriculture) and areas (e.g. the urban periphery, networks of wetlands). Alignment with the Southern partners’ priorities was identified as a key condition for success, as was the strengthening of existing mainstreaming initiatives. Focusing on training future biodiversity champions was regarded as key to ensure that a locally developed long-term vision addresses future governance challenges that could otherwise jeopardize the benefits of biodiversity mainstreaming. Ensuring that biodiversity is seen as an asset and not just as an externality, was regarded as essential. Monitoring and evaluating biodiversity mainstreaming requires alignment and harmonization among donors and their partners, to avoid unjustified pro-biodiversity labeling of aid flows. Finally, there was a call for a critical stance regarding the expected linkages between biodiversity and climate action in development cooperation: although synergies are possible, narrowly designed climate projects can actually degrade biodiversity.