The Current Column
World Earth Day
A strong science-policy interface now for climate and biodiversity
Faus Onbargi, Alexia / Alicia Perez-Porro / Anna de las Heras CarlesThe Current Column (2025)
Bonn: German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), The Current Column of 22 April 2025
Bonn, 22 April 2025. Amid recent geopolitical tensions, climate change and biodiversity loss have faded from public view – despite their growing urgency. Addressing these interconnected crises requires evidence-informed policymaking at all levels, which demands strengthening the science-policy interface for climate and biodiversity.
Climate change accelerates biodiversity loss by shrinking and fragmenting habitats, intensifying extreme weather events, shifting species distributions and disrupting marine ecosystems through ocean warming and acidification—undermining the resilience of life on land and sea. At the same time, biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation exacerbate climate change by weakening nature’s ability to act as a carbon sink –forests, peatlands and oceans store vast amounts of carbon, and their degradation leads to higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The erosion of biodiversity also undermines key ecosystem functions like water retention, soil fertility and local temperature regulation that help buffer climate impacts. Climate change and biodiversity loss are two sides of the same coin—each exacerbates the other, and neither can be effectively tackled in isolation.
To achieve effective short-term solutions with lasting benefits, it is essential to maximise synergies and minimise trade-offs between climate action and biodiversity and ecosystems conservation and restoration. For example, restoring forests and wetlands can simultaneously enhance carbon sequestration and support biodiversity, creating a powerful synergy. Conversely, poorly planned large-scale renewable energy projects can disrupt ecosystems and destroy habitats, highlighting a critical trade-off. A strong science-policy interface—where integrated scientific knowledge directly informs national and sub-national decision-making —is key to enabling coherence between these two domains and delivering coordinated responses at all levels.
The two international bodies that synthesise science on climate change and biodiversity respectively are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES). The IPCC, established in 1988, is the leading authority on climate science at a global level. It offers policy-relevant assessments—such as on the impacts of global warming, which has informed key benchmarks like the 1.5°C threshold to limit global warming enshrined in the Paris Agreement. Meanwhile, the IPBES, established in 2012, focuses on biodiversity loss and nature contributions to people, integrating indigenous knowledge into its assessments to offer a holistic understanding of environmental change. However, the two bodies have yet to deliver an integrated climate-biodiversity approach to synthesising knowledge and could more effectively translate scientific knowledge into coherent policy action.
The first challenge relates to their limited collaboration, which has fostered siloed approaches that limit the production and availability of integrated knowledge. The divide reflects differences in their mandates, methods, and communities—but the consequences are increasingly evident in fragmented policies and missed opportunities for synergy. Strengthening collaboration and coordination between them—particularly in efforts aimed at policymakers—would support better informed policy design, help avoid harmful trade-offs, and promote co-benefits.
The second challenge – better translating scientific knowledge into concrete policy action – is hampered by the fact that these bodies are not, by design, policy prescriptive. This reflects a broader systemic issue: the persistent difficulty of integrating science from all world regions into evidence-informed policies that reflect national and subnational realities. Addressing this requires a stronger and more inclusive science-policy interface ecosystem across global, national and local levels, tailored to diverse contexts and involving multiple stakeholders— scientists, policymakers, civil society, local knowledge holders, and the private sector. For such an ecosystem to thrive, it needs sustained political commitment and active communities of knowledge brokers—individuals and institutions who can connect science with decision-making in practical, meaningful ways. They are essential in ensuring research informs policy by synthesising, translating, and communicating scientific findings, responding to evidence needs from decision-makers, and improving access to relevant knowledge.
In an increasingly complex and uncertain geopolitical landscape, integrating climate and biodiversity knowledge from all world regions for effective decision-making is more critical than ever—and essential to tackle these twin crises coherently and effectively. On this World Earth Day, we urge policymakers at all levels to champion integrated strategies that transform science into action—laying the foundation for a resilient and nature-positive future.
Alexia Faus Onbargi is a Policy Researcher in the research department Environmental Governance at the German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), specialising in policy coherence for Just Transitions.
Dr Alicia Perez-Porro is Head of Policy Engagement & Institutional Relations at Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF).
Anna Carles de las Heras is Research Technician on Policy Engagement at Centre de Recerca Ecològica i Aplicacions Forestals (CREAF).
About the IDOS author
Further IDOS experts
Climate risk governance
Environmental and Resource Sociology, Public Policy
Economy and Political Science
Comparatist
Economist
Politcal Science
Environmental Research
Economy
Comparative Political Economy
International Relations
Geography
Economy
Political Scientist
Geography
Political Science
Economy
Political Scientist
Governance
Political Scientist
Economist
Peace and Conflict Research
Ecological economics
Economics
Agricultural Economist
Climate & Knowledge Sociology
Energy and Environmental Policy
