Why climate change and biodiversity loss must remain at the center of global political action

In the week that marks Earth Day, CREAF calls for a stronger connection between science and politics. In a global emergency, climate change and biodiversity loss must remain at the forefront because they require coherent, integrated and inclusive decision-making based on solid evidence. An approach that seems obvious, but is not always so.

This is the argument of the awareness-raising article on this subject 'A strong science-policy interface now for climate and biodiversity', which is the first collaboration between the German centre IDOS and CREAF,, with the participation of Alexia Faus Onbargi, Alícia Pérez-Porro and Anna de las Heras Carles, linked to the Respin scientific project. In the words of Pérez-Porro, “the future we want depends on action rooted in knowledge and on the people who work to make this connection possible”.

The argument for the collaboration between IDOS and CREAF essentially defends the following:

1. Two scientific reference panels with independent mandates: IPCC and IPBES. The intergovernmental platforms on climate change and biodiversity have different mandates, communities and governance mechanisms and work separately. They need to collaborate more closely to provide integrated knowledge and avoid designing coherent public policies on climate change and biodiversity.
2. Complexity in transferring scientific information to political action. The consequence of the barriers to informing public policies from science is an inconsistency on the part of these policies, both national and subnational.
3. From local to global. National and local science-policy interfaces need to be strengthened to ensure that global knowledge is translated into meaningful local actions.
4. Diversity of knowledge. Diverse knowledge systems matter: including indigenous and local knowledge in decision-making enriches our collective understanding.
5. Knowledge brokers, a key role. We need to work with an ecosystem perspective and give weight to knowledge intermediaries, who are the agents dedicated to the dissemination, communication, transfer and, therefore, the synthesis of knowledge.