Lessons from COP15 on effective scientific engagement in biodiversity policy processes
Imagine a high-stakes international negotiation where the fate of millions of species hangs in the balance. In one room, policymakers debate targets and timelines. In another, scientists hold crucial data about extinction risks and ecosystem functions—but struggle to translate their complex findings into actionable policies. This communication gap represents one of the most significant challenges in global biodiversity conservation.
The 2022 UN Biodiversity Conference (COP15) in Montreal became a critical case study in how scientific evidence can—and must—effectively inform global environmental agreements. When representatives from 196 countries adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, they relied on scientific input to shape 23 action-oriented targets for protecting nature 2 5 . The aftermath of these negotiations provides valuable insights into how researchers can better bridge the science-policy divide to address the escalating biodiversity crisis 4 .
significantly altered by human actions 3
significantly altered by human actions 3
This unprecedented loss threatens not only species survival but also human wellbeing, since natural ecosystems provide essential services from clean water and air to climate regulation and food security 3 .
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), established at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, created a framework for international cooperation on biodiversity conservation 5 .
The conference of parties (COP) meetings, such as COP15, serve as critical venues where scientific evidence meets policy development 6 . However, effective engagement requires more than simply presenting data.
Biodiversity is inherently multifaceted, creating tension between scientific precision and policy needs for clear, measurable targets 4 .
Biodiversity processes operate across vastly different scales, creating challenges for standardized global targets 4 .
Systematic analysis reveals significant imbalances in our knowledge base across geography, timeframe, and methodology 1 .
Based on systematic analysis of terrestrial protected area research showing geographic representation imbalances 1 .
The genetic diversity target required scientists to develop novel communication approaches to convey complex concepts to non-specialists 4 . Successful strategies included:
Effective scientific engagement doesn't happen just during formal negotiations. Researchers who contributed to successful outcomes at COP15 invested time in:
While specific targets like protected area coverage are relatively straightforward to communicate, scientists played a crucial role in providing context about their limitations and implementation requirements 4 . Research highlighted that merely designating protected areas is insufficient—their effectiveness depends on adequate funding, appropriate management, and equitable governance 1 5 .
While COP15 addressed policy frameworks, a groundbreaking 2021 meta-analysis provided crucial scientific evidence supporting the value of biodiversity conservation. The study synthesized 46 factorial experiments that manipulated both species richness and environmental conditions to answer a critical question: Does biodiversity help ecosystems withstand environmental changes?
Factorial Experiments Analyzed
Researchers identified 46 experimental studies that met strict criteria, including manipulation of both species richness and environmental factors .
Experiments covered four major global change drivers: Warming, Drought, Nutrient addition, and CO₂ enrichment .
The analysis included studies across three taxonomic groups: Microbes, Phytoplankton, and Terrestrial plants .
For each study, researchers calculated the effect size of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning under both ambient and manipulated environmental conditions .
| Global Change Driver | Microbes | Phytoplankton | Terrestrial Plants |
|---|---|---|---|
| Warming | 4 studies | 3 studies | 6 studies |
| Drought | - | - | 14 studies |
| Nutrient Addition | - | - | 11 studies |
| CO₂ Enrichment | - | - | 8 studies |
Biodiversity promoted ecosystem functioning in both ambient and manipulated environments across all taxonomic groups and stress types .
Biodiversity effects were often larger in stressful environments induced by global change drivers .
The positive effects of biodiversity increased over time in both ambient and manipulated environments .
Positive effects were driven mainly by interspecific complementarity—where diverse species partition niches or facilitate each other's functioning .
| Environmental Condition | Effect Size | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Ambient conditions | Moderate | Biodiversity boosts functioning |
| Moderate stress | Moderate-High | Enhanced biodiversity value |
| High stress | High | Strongest biodiversity benefits |
| Over time | Increasing | Long-term strengthening of effects |
Function: Identify evidence gaps and imbalances in research coverage 1
Policy value: Guide strategic research investments to fill critical knowledge gaps
Function: Isolate interactive effects of multiple stressors and biodiversity
Policy value: Test real-world scenarios where multiple threats operate simultaneously
Function: Standardize measurements across different studies and systems 1
Policy value: Enable coherent monitoring and target tracking
Function: Assess protected area effectiveness through comparisons 1
Policy value: Provide credible evidence for conservation investment decisions
The lessons from COP15 and supporting research point toward a more integrated, engaged model of scientific practice in biodiversity conservation. As the 2021 meta-analysis demonstrated, biodiversity provides natural insurance against environmental change —but protecting this insurance requires scientists to effectively communicate its value and guide its implementation.
The successful adoption of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework represents not an endpoint but a beginning 2 .
Its ambitious targets—including protecting 30% of Earth's land and seas by 2030 2 5 —will require ongoing scientific engagement to implement effectively, monitor progress, and adapt strategies based on new evidence.
For scientists, this means developing not only specialized knowledge but also skills in communication, collaboration, and consensus-building 4 . For policymakers, it means creating spaces for scientific input throughout the policy cycle. And for both, it means recognizing that in the face of unprecedented biodiversity loss, evidence-based action represents our most promising path toward a nature-positive future 6 .
The challenge is immense, but the lessons from COP15 provide a roadmap for how science can effectively guide policy to address the biodiversity crisis. The time for applying these lessons is now—our window for reversing nature loss is rapidly closing, but remains open for those who can effectively bridge the science-policy divide 3 6 .