Developing science-policy competencies through a global biodiversity panel

By Dr. Mialy Rann Andriamahefazafy, GSPI, Dr. Iago Otero, UNIL and Prof. Chinwe Ifejika Speranza, UNIBE

‍

In December 2024, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) adopted two thematic assessments: one on the underlying causes of biodiversity loss and the determinants of transformative change and options for achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity (referred to as the Transformative Change Assessment) and one on the interlinkages among biodiversity, water, food and health (the Nexus Assessment). 

In 2021, we joined the Transformative Change Assessment as lead authors. We were selected by IPBES with nominations by national delegations (Mialy by the government of Madagascar, Iago and Chinwe by Switzerland). This blog presents our reflections from this experience, including how early-career researchers can leverage working at this interface to build their science-policy capacity.  

IPBES assessments and the science-policy interface 

The IPBES assessments exemplify one of the most advanced forms of science-policy interfaces and knowledge co-production: governments request an assessment of knowledge and policy options, and in response, researchers provide state of the art insights based on synthesis of existing knowledge. Literature assessment in the case of the IPBES includes scientific papers, grey literature and Indigenous Knowledge. During a three-year assessment process, governments and stakeholders have opportunities to review and comment on the text, which is revised accordingly by the IPBES authors (IPBES 2019). At the annual plenary, governments and experts then refine the summary for policymakers together, and governments validate the assessments. These assessments can then serve as a basis or inspiration towards environmental policies, broader development planning and actions. An interesting tool to observe this use of the assessments is  IPBES’ Impact Tracking Database which shows how the assessments have been mobilised by various stakeholders. 

The Transformative Change Assessment (TCA)

The TCA is a thematic assessment that highlights the underlying causes of the direct drivers of biodiversity crisis, and their impacts. It goes deep into the structural and systemic issues that prevent us from reversing biodiversity loss. The leading key message from the assessment is that transformative change for a just and sustainable world is urgent and necessary and delaying action to achieve global sustainability is costly compared to the benefits of taking action now.

The following three figures give a glimpse of the assessment:

The above graph from chapter 1 shows the need for transformative change. Since 1971, despite increasing efforts towards conserving biodiversity (purple line), more states participating in multilateral agreements (green line) and science (orange line), biodiversity continues to decline at an unprecedented rate (blue line).

The above figure from chapter 4 shows that five main challenges prevent the achievement of transformative change (Persistent relations of domination, especially those that emerged and were propagated in colonial eras;  Economic and political inequalities; Inadequate policies and unfit institutions; Unsustainable consumption and production patterns; and Limited access to clean technology and uncoordinated knowledge and innovation systems). These challenges are unpacked through 20 barriers within the report. These issues are systemic, persistent and pervasive.

The above figure in chapter 5 provides five key strategies for transformative change and the importance of different actions within each strategy. To support these strategies, four principles are identified in the report: (i) Equity & justice as imperatives to ensure that interventions for transformative change are fair, (ii) Pluralism & inclusion to recognise that a diversity of perspectives is important, including those of Indigenous Peoples, (iii) Respectful and reciprocal human-nature relationships, and (iv) Adaptive learning and action, necessary to manage unexpected effects. 

To learn more about this transformative change assessment, consult the summary for policymakers.

Science-policy experience within the biodiversity panel

For early-career researchers, being involved in IPBES presents several opportunities of practising science-policy work. The following are the top three we experienced: 

• Building expertise in a highly topical subject: Engaging in the TCA allowed us and all the other authors to reinforce our expertise in biodiversity governance. As authors, we assessed a vast corpus of more than 7,000 references that covers the historical but also the latest research and knowledge about biodiversity and transformative change. At a time when the triple planetary crisis is high on the global agenda, being aware of the state of knowledge on the biodiversity crisis is a great opportunity. Furthermore, since our research backgrounds were very diverse, taking part in the assessment allowed us to integrate more system thinking and encouraged us to bring our expert fields such as land systems, forestry, fisheries or degrowth into the broader biodiversity discussions. 

• Practicing policy-relevant writing: The literature on science-policy interfaces (SPI) (Cairney and Oliver 2020; Topp et al. 2018) mentions that one strategy for researchers to have an impact on policy making is to consider the policy relevance of their research. Being policy-relevant is one of the primary features of assessments by global panels such as IPBES or IPCC. Experts are mandated to be policy-relevant in providing the state of knowledge and policy options without being policy prescriptive. Therefore, while the TCA covered themes that required actions in specific areas of our societies and economies, the authors wrote the assessment in a way that provides evidence on the need for action along with different strategies and options to achieve change. Writing in a policy-relevant way was also a very enriching exercise of communication. As experts, we learned to write less abstractly by drawing on examples and illustrations, and by assessing emerging or established scientific evidence. During the negotiation of the summary for policymakers, authors had to explain some of the evidence and rephrase sentences in ways that would be more legible to a broader audience, including policymakers. 

• Developing networks with academics and policymakers: Another competency often considered important at the SPI is developing one's network (Oliver et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2022). Joining an assessment provides this opportunity in two ways. The TCA assessment had more than 100 experts, and working together for three years has helped build connections with well-known researchers and long-term friendships with researchers from various disciplines. All the chapters also aim to publish academic papers based on the assessment, which provides a nice reward in academia, especially for early-career researchers. The second networking opportunity is with policymakers. Since governments nominate most authors, countries with good coordination capacity organise exchanges between experts and policymakers at the national level. This is the case of Switzerland, for example, where the focal point (led by the Swiss Biodiversity Forum at the national Academy of Sciences) organises such dialogues through meetings called IPBES-CH events. For countries like Madagascar that do not have such coordination, authors have to keep in contact with their focal points to create exchanges.   

‍Concluding thoughts on the role of researchers in global panels

The creation of the IPBES and IPCC panels have become a model for advancing the mobilisation of science in policy making. Since new panels (on pollution, Artificial Intelligence and more) are currently being negotiated at the global level, researchers and knowledge holders will continue to be solicited by global panels to shape local, national and global policy responses to transborder challenges. Participating in an assessment offers significant opportunities. However, it also demands significant investment from researchers. It requires their time, expertise in knowledge synthesis, ability to navigate interdisciplinarity and group work, and skills in crafting policy-relevant content while managing the complexity of political contexts. Researchers also need to be ready to overcome challenges such as connecting and integrating different knowledge systems and experiences. 

Universities and science funders have a crucial role in supporting researchers to build policy engagement skills and in providing incentives and reward mechanisms for these contributions. The Geneva Science-Policy Interface (GSPI), for example, actively supports capacity-building for researchers and professionals eager to engage effectively at the science-policy interfaces. 

Please find out more about the GSPI’s Learning @ the Boundary programme.

‍About the authors: 

Chinwe Ifejika Speranza leads the Land Systems and Sustainable Land Management research group at the Institute of Geography, University of Bern. Chinwe conducts research on land use, forests, food systems and climate change adaptation, among other topics. She also serves on various boards of networks and science-policy interfaces such as IPBES.

Iago Otero is a project officer at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Mountain Research, University of Lausanne, where he coordinates a collaborative research program with cantonal services. Iago has extensive research experience in wildfire, degrowth, biodiversity conservation, transformative change and inter- and transdisciplinarity.

‍Mialy Rann is the science-policy officer at the GSPI. She oversees the capacity building activities of the GSPI. Mialy has extensive research experience in sustainability, biodiversity and fisheries issues. She also has practical experience with NGOs and has taken part in science-policy work within platforms such as the IPBES or regional fisheries management organisations in the Indian Ocean.