Reflections for Biodiversity Researchers Engaging With Policy‐Science Interfaces

Achieving global biodiversity goals by 2050 requires urgent and integrated actions

Plural values of nature are gradually being acknowledged and promoted through international and domestic law. Value pluralism emphasises diversity and the recognition of difference, acknowledging intrinsic and relational values of nature alongside instrumental values. This article demonstrates how changes toward embracing plural values of nature in law, including under the Kunming‐Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), could be important for burgeoning nature‐related financial disclosure regimes stimulated by the GBF and the recommendations of the Taskforce on Nature‐related Financial Disclosures (TNFD). Specifically, how nature is valued is relevant to the consideration of nature‐related transition risks required as part of nature‐related financial disclosures. Regulatory, policy and legal changes to enshrine plural values of nature into international and domestic law have the potential to give rise to transition risks for organisations, which have acted in reliance on the mainstream and instrumentalist value of nature. Whilst there is momentum for change toward plural values of nature at the international law level, the soft law status of the GBF means that the extent of its normative influence is reflected through analysis and evaluation of hard law obligations and domestic legislation that are designed to give effect to it. This article suggests that, based on the experience of Australia, legal changes that promote plural values of nature are emerging. While Australia retains a highly instrumentalised value of nature, legal and policy changes aimed at implementing commitments under the GBF demonstrate a growing commitment to plural values of nature within the national context. Even though Australia continues to primarily value nature for its utility and provision of ecosystem services, efforts to embrace plural values rely on the acknowledgment and inclusion of First Nations culture, philosophy and worldviews. Further regulatory changes that advance plural values of nature could give rise to transition risks for organisations to consider when making nature‐related financial disclosures.

Integrated spatial planning for biodiversity conservation and food production

Effective knowledge exchange at science-policy interfaces (SPIs) can foster evidence-informed policy-making through the integration of a wide range of knowledge inputs. This is especially crucial for conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity and ecosystem services (ES), human well-being and sustainable development. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can contribute significantly to knowledge exchange at SPIs. Recognizing that, several capacity building programs focused on sustainability have been introduced recently. However, little is known about the experiences and perceptions of ECRs in relation to SPIs. Our study focused on SPI engagement of ECRs who conduct research on biodiversity and ES, as perceived and experienced. Specifically, we addressed ‘motivations’, ‘barriers’ and ‘opportunities and ‘benefits’. A total of 145 ECRs have completed the survey. Our results showed that ECRs were generally interested to engage in SPIs and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. Respondents perceived lack of understanding about involvement channels, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility of ECRs by other actors and encouragement of senior colleagues as barriers to engaging in SPIs. Those who have already participated in SPIs generally saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction with experience in SPIs was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs by policymakers – an issue that likely extends beyond ECRs and implies the need for transformations in knowledge exchange within SPIs. In conclusion, based on insights from our survey, we outline several opportunities for increased and better facilitation of ECR engagement in SPIs.

ABSTRACTIn 2010, there was a bold commitment to take action in halting global biodiversity loss by 2020. Now, half way through the Convention on Biological Diversity strategic plan 2011–2020, the success of the mission is under discussion. With the Twelfth Conference of the Parties attesting a lack of action, attention is now focused on the science–policy interface. This article offers a critical examination of the current debate on the science–policy interface and its implications for biodiversity research. The aim is to demonstrate the need for a social–ecological perspective. First, we argue that there is not only a lack of action but also a lack of knowledge. Second, we present social–ecological systems as a common framework for biodiversity research. Third, we explain the potential of transdisciplinarity in biodiversity research. We finish by calling for a decisive turning point to consider the hybrid notions of biodiversity in science, politics and conservation activities.EDITED BY Berta Martín-López

The untapped potential of short-read sequencing in biodiversity research.

The 2022 Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and Paris Agreement (PA) are highly complementary agreements where each depends on the other’s success to be effective. The GBF offers a very specific framework of interim goals and targets that break down the objective of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) into a decade-spanning work plan. Comprised of 10 sections – including a 2050 vision and a 2030 mission, four overarching goals and 23 specific targets – the GBF is expected to guide biodiversity policy around the world in the coming years to decades. A similar set of global interim climate policy targets could translate the global temperature goal into concrete policy milestones that would provide policy makers and civil society with reference points for policy making and efforts to hold governments accountable. Beyond inspiring climate policy experts to convert temperature goals into policy milestones, GBF has the potential to strengthen the implementation of the PA at the nexus of biodiversity and climate (adaptation and mitigation) action. For example, the GBF can help to ensure that nature-based climate solutions are implemented with full consideration of biodiversity concerns, of the rights and interests of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, and with fair and transparent benefit sharing arrangements. In sum, the GBF should be mandatory reading for all climate policy makers.

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) and its monitoring framework aims to reverse the decline of nature. The GBF tasks governments to report progress towards 23 targets and four goals but also “invites Parties and relevant organizations to support community-based monitoring and information systems and citizen science” to improve information for decision-making and build support for conservation efforts throughout society. We assessed how Indigenous Peoples, local communities and citizen scientists and professional scientists can help monitor the GBF. Of the 365 indicators of the GBF monitoring framework, 110 (30%) can involve Indigenous Peoples, local communities and citizen scientists in community-based monitoring programmes, 185 (51%) could benefit from citizen involvement in data collection and 180 (49%) require scientists and governmental statistical organizations. A smaller proportion of indicators for GBF targets are amenable to citizen monitoring than for the previous Aichi targets or other multilateral environment agreements—largely because 196 GBF indicators are analytically complex (54%) and 175 require legislative overview (48%). Greater involvement of citizens in the GBF would increase societal engagement in international agreements, harness knowledge from those living close to nature to fill data gaps and enhance local to national decision-making based on improved information, leading to better conservation actions.

Environmental problems, climate change, and public health risks are among the most important policy agendas on a global scale today. In this context, the science-policy interface stands out as a strategic mechanism for transferring scientific knowledge to policy processes to more effectively manage environmental threats and health problems. The aim of this study is to examine how data- driven approaches are implemented in environmental and public health management at the science-policy interface and to offer recommendations for policymakers and practitioners based on national and international experiences. The study is based on a literature review method. The study presents findings related to the science-policy interface in environmental and public health management under five main headings. First, the relationship between scientific knowledge and policy processes is often intermittent, and the lack of sustainable collaboration mechanisms is noteworthy. Significant gaps exist in data-driven decision-making processes. The separate collection of environmental and health data at different institutions hinders integrated management and limits interdisciplinary integration. This deficiency negatively impacts the applicability of the One Health approach. Second, knowledge brokerage mechanisms appear to be insufficiently established at the institutional level. Scientific information often reaches policymakers through project-based reports, and this process is not supported by permanent structures. Thirdly, it appears that the dimensions of reliability, validity, and legitimacy required for the effective use of scientific information in policymaking are not always achieved simultaneously. While scientific reports may be methodologically sound, they struggle to gain social legitimacy due to a lack of stakeholder engagement. Fourthly, the strong relationship between ecosystem services and human health is not adequately reflected in policy documents. Important issues such as food security, air quality, and biodiversity loss are often addressed at a secondary level. Finally, the DPSIR model, widely used internationally to analyze the cause-and- effect relationships of environmental problems, appears to be insufficiently used in policy documents. The results suggest that the science-policy interface is increasingly strengthened in all national and international strategic documents, but that implementation requires further development in the areas of data integration, information brokering, and stakeholder engagement. Recommendations for academia include encouraging interdisciplinary research, increasing information brokering efforts, and strengthening international collaborations. In terms of implementation, it is important to adopt integrated data systems, institutional information intermediation mechanisms, ecosystem-based health policies and the DPSIR model at national and international levels.

In response to the increasing trend of biodiversity decline globally and its consequences for the planet as a whole, the Convention on Biological Diversity Conference of the Parties adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) in December 2022. The Framework sets conservation, sustainability and equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and MEAns of implementation goals to be achieved by 2050, and actionable targets to be achieved by 2030 to halt and reverse biodiversity loss. During the negotiations and even after the adoption of the GBF, much debate has surrounded how the ocean has been represented in the Framework. By addressing the scope of the GBF vis-à-vis the Convention, quantifying and comparing the use of marine-related terms in the GBF and in the previous biodiversity framework, and aligning relevant COP decisions and objectives and activities of the CBD Programme of Work on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity with the GBF targets, we conclude that the GBF does not fail to address marine and coastal biodiversity and all targets are applicable to this ecosystem.

The Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is an important agreement committing 196 countries (the United States is not part of GBF) to reduce and stop the loss of biodiversity by 2030. Biodiversity and soil diversity (pedodiversity) are intricately linked by sharing biosphere. Similarly to biodiversity, pedodiversity is classified using various classification systems adopted by countries in the world (e.g., United States Soil Taxonomy). The loss of pedodiversity is often caused by land use and land cover (LULC) changes, which impact biodiversity. These losses need to be acknowledged and accounted for by the GBF. The innovation of this study is that it proposes to include pedodiversity and its metrics into the GBF using the contiguous United States of America (USA) and GBF targets as an example. This study proposes to use geospatial technologies (e.g., land cover change matrix) linked to soil databases to monitor temporal changes and no net loss in pedodiversity. Loss of pedodiversity can result in damages (e.g., pollution), which can harm biodiversity and ecosystem functions and services (ES). As of 2021, over two million square kilometers were anthropogenically degraded in the contiguous USA, with all ten soil orders being affected by this degradation (relevant to target ten focused on the sustainable use of natural resources). Analysis of changes in LULC between 2001 and 2021 showed an increase in anthropogenic land degradation (LD) (+3.4%), which resulted in a net loss of pedodiversity and affected all of the ten soil orders in the contiguous USA. Future GBF refinements could use pedodiversity metrics to analyze the ability to support biodiversity.

Glaring gaps in tools to estimate businesses’ biodiversity impacts hinder alignment with the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework

Satellite remote sensing (SRS) provides huge potential for tracking progress towards conservation targets and goals, but SRS products need to be tailored towards the requirements of ecological users and policymakers. In this viewpoint article, we propose to advance SRS products with a terrestrial biodiversity focus for tracking the goals and targets of the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework (GBF). Of 371 GBF biodiversity indicators, we identified 58 unique indicators for tracking the state of terrestrial biodiversity, spanning 2 goals and 8 targets. Thirty-six shared enough information to analyse their underlying workflows and spatial information products. We used the concept of Essential Biodiversity Variables (EBV) to connect spatial information products to different dimensions of biodiversity (e.g. species populations, species traits, and ecosystem structure), and then counted EBV usage across GBF goals and targets. Combined with published scores on feasibility, accuracy, and immaturity of SRS products, we identified a priority list of terrestrial SRS products representing opportunities for scientific development in the next decade. From this list, we suggest two key directions for advancing SRS products and workflows in the GBF context using current instruments and technologies. First, existing terrestrial ecosystem distributions and live cover fraction SRS products (of above-ground biomass, ecosystem fragmentation, ecosystem structural variance, fraction of vegetation cover, plant area index profile, and land cover) need to be refined using a co-design approach to achieve harmonized ecosystem taxonomies, reference states and improved thematic detail. Second, new SRS products related to plant physiology and primary productivity (e.g. leaf area index, chlorophyll content & flux, foliar N/P/K content, and carbon cycle) need to be developed to better estimate plant functional traits, especially with deep learning techniques, radiative transfer models and multi-sensor frameworks. Advancements along these two routes could greatly improve the tracking of GBF target 2 (‘improve connectivity of priority terrestrial ecosystems), target 3 (‘ensure management of protected areas’), target 6 (‘control the introduction and impact of invasive alien species’), target 8 (‘minimize impact of climate change on biodiversity’), target 10 (‘increase sustainable productivity of agricultural and forested ecosystems’) and target 12 (‘increase public urban green/blue spaces’). Such improvements can have secondary benefits for other EBVs, e.g. as predictor variables for modelling species distributions and population abundances (i.e. data that are required in several GBF indicators). We hope that our viewpoint stimulates the advancement of biodiversity monitoring from space and a stronger collaboration among ecologists, SRS scientists and policy experts.

Genetic diversity within species is the basis for evolutionary adaptive capacity and has recently been included as a target for protection in the United Nations’ Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). However, we lack large-scale mathematical frameworks to quantify how much genetic diversity has already been lost, let alone to predict future losses under 21st century conservation scenarios. To fill this gap, we developed an area-based spatio-temporal predictive framework of genetic diversity calibrated with population-scale genomic data of 29 plant and animal species. To estimate present genetic diversity loss with our framework, we used species’ habitat area and population sizes losses reported in the Living Planet Index, the Red List, and new GBF indicators across 13,808 species for the last 5 decades. Applying our evolutionary framework across these species, we estimate genetic diversity loss lags behind population and habitat area declines, with an estimated current 13–22% π genetic diversity loss. However, we forecast future genetic diversity losses will reach 41–76% even if populations are not further contracted. These results highlight that safeguarding existing habitats is insufficient to maintain the genetic health of species and relying solely on continuous genetic monitoring underestimates lagging long term impacts.

The failure to halt the global decline in biodiversity by 2020 contributed to the adoption of the ambitious Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which includes transparency and responsibility as foundations. The Global Biodiversity Framework identifies the actions needed so that societies are living in harmony with nature by 2050. To support the delivery of this ambition, the transparency and responsibility mechanisms defined in the Global Biodiversity Framework include a detailed Monitoring Framework designed to prompt evidence-based actions and track progress towards its goals and targets at the national and global level. The Monitoring Framework includes a set of indicators selected by the Parties through a political process. These indicators have since been operationalized through a scientific process led by an expert group focused on assessing and clarifying their methods. Most indicators are now ready to inform on progress, but key limitations of data availability and methodological challenges remain. The onus is now on the Parties to resource implementation and on the scientific community to support indicator use and development. Implementation of the Monitoring Framework will provide an unprecedented view of the state of biodiversity at the national level, which can be used to assess both national and global progress. Investment to overcome the Monitoring Framework's weaknesses will improve our ability to measure progress and mobilize the actions needed to protect and restore biodiversity and the many benefits we receive from nature.