Scientific environmental diplomacy: a key asset for governing the biodiversity crisis
Abstract Over the past few decades, environmental diplomacy has gained prominence in international politics. Situated at the intersection of science and policy, it has become essential for addressing knowledge gaps arising from the complexity and global scale of the interconnected environmental crises – encompassing climate change, biodiversity loss, pollution – and land degradation.Scientific efforts to assess planetary health and propose solutions have been instrumental in raising awareness and guiding policies. This contribution examines the role of scientific environmental diplomacy, with a focus on the accelerating biodiversity crisis.We first provide a historical overview of key milestones, from recognizing biodiversity loss as a critical issue in international politics to its integration into the United Nations 2030 Agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and, more recently, the adoption of the Kunming-Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework (KM-GBF) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).We then examine the role of institutions and expert networks such as UNEP, IPCC and IPBES, which, particularly through the production of environmental assessments, have significantly influenced the shaping of the biodiversity components of the SDGs and the KM-GBF.Finally, we explore how knowledge is produced and used within these institutional settings, highlighting how the inclusion or exclusion of diverse knowledge systems influences global and regional environmental governance.
- Referencias
- Cómo citar
- Del mismo autor
- Métricas
Ali, S., & Vladich, H. (2016). Environmental diplomacy. In C. M. Constantinou, P. Kerr, & P. Sharp (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of diplomacy (pp. 601–616). SAGE Publications.
Bell-James, J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2025). Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 9(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4
Buckley, R. C. (2025). Conservation funding from CBD COP15 and COP16. Ambio, 54(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02107-3
CBD. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Montréal: Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Cell, 136(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.030
Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V., Grimes, R. W., & Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4). https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/pragmatic-perspective
Gustafsson, K. M., & Hysing, E. (2023). IPBES as a transformative agent: opportunities and risks. Environmental Conservation, 50(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000467
Hughes, A. C. (2023). The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next? Integrative Conservation, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/inc3.16
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6417333
IPBES. (2022a). Thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10925382
IPBES. (2022b). Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7687931
IPBES. (2024). Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Transformative Change Assessment). K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, & A. Agrawal (Eds). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382215
IPBES. (2026). Methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. X. Rueda, M. Jones, & S. Polasky (Eds). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017
IPCC. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/. Accessed 22 June 2023.
Kitzmann, N., Caesar, L., Sakschewski, B., Rockström, J., Sakschewski, B., Caesar, L., et al. (2025). Planetary Health Check 2025: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet. https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017
Klinger, B. A., & Ryan, S. J. (2022). Population distribution within the human climate niche. PLOS Climate, 1(11), e0000086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000086
Maney, C., Guaras, D., Harrison, J., Guizar-Coutiño, A., Harfoot, M. B. J., Hill, S. L. L., et al. (2024). National commitments to Aichi Targets and their implications for monitoring the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. npj Biodiversity, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-024-00039-5
McElwee, P. D., Harrison, P. A., van Huysen, T. L., Alonso Roldán, V., Barrios, E., Dasgupta, P., et al. (2024). IPBES Nexus Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13850290
Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt4cggm7
Özkaragöz Doğan, E., Uygun, Z., & Akçomak, İ. S. (2021). Can science diplomacy address the global climate change challenge? Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1911
Peters, R. J. (1986). Can we slow global warming? BioScience, 36, 140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310296
Pörtner, H. -O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Bai, X., Barnes, D., et al. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5101133
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. I., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Rosen, W. G. (1997). What's in a name? BioScience, 47, 708–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313212
Royal Society & American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: The Royal Society. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf
Ruffini, P. -B. (2018). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Science-Diplomacy Nexus. Global Policy, 9(S3), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12588
Rüland, A. -L., Andersen, L. H., Hassen, A. K., Kinyanjui, C., Ralfs, A., & Grisci, B. I. (2025). Science diplomacy: A global research field? Findings from a bibliometric analysis of the science diplomacy scholarship of the past twenty years. Scientometrics, 130(8), 4697–4722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05396-x
Sarkar, S. (2021). Origin of the term biodiversity. BioScience, 71(9), 893. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab071
Sarkki, S., Young, J. C., Vandewalle, M., Heikkinen, H. I., Norum, R., Stenseke, M., et al. (2025). Transformative science–policy interfacing: the case of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sustainability Science, 20(1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01593-4
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: CBD. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5
Tangley, L. (1985). A new plan to conserve the earth's biota. BioScience, 35(6), 334-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310058
United Nations. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.cbd.int/convention/
Wilson, E. O., & Peter, F. M. (Eds.). (1988). BioDiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Xu, C., Kohler, T. A., Lenton, T. M., Svenning, J. -C., & Scheffer, M. (2020). Future of the human climate niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(21), 11350–11355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
Bell-James, J., & Watson, J. E. M. (2025). Ambitions in national plans do not yet match bold international protection and restoration commitments. Nature Ecology & Evolution, 9(3), 417–424. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-025-02636-4
Buckley, R. C. (2025). Conservation funding from CBD COP15 and COP16. Ambio, 54(2), 163–167. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13280-024-02107-3
CBD. (2022). Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. CBD/COP/DEC/15/4. Montréal: Convention on Biological Diversity. https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-15/cop-15-dec-04-en.pdf
Fedoroff, N. V. (2009). Science Diplomacy in the 21st Century. Cell, 136(1), 9–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.030
Gluckman, P. D., Turekian, V., Grimes, R. W., & Kishi, T. (2017). Science diplomacy: A pragmatic perspective from the inside. Science & Diplomacy, 6(4). https://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2018/pragmatic-perspective
Gustafsson, K. M., & Hysing, E. (2023). IPBES as a transformative agent: opportunities and risks. Environmental Conservation, 50(1), 7–11. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0376892922000467
Hughes, A. C. (2023). The Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework: How did we get here, and where do we go next? Integrative Conservation, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/inc3.16
IPBES. (2019). Global assessment report on biodiversity and ecosystem services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6417333
IPBES. (2022a). Thematic assessment of the sustainable use of wild species of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10925382
IPBES. (2022b). Methodological assessment of the diverse values and valuation of nature of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7687931
IPBES. (2024). Thematic Assessment Report on the Underlying Causes of Biodiversity Loss and the Determinants of Transformative Change and Options for Achieving the 2050 Vision for Biodiversity of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Transformative Change Assessment). K. O’Brien, L. Garibaldi, & A. Agrawal (Eds). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.11382215
IPBES. (2026). Methodological assessment of the impact and dependence of business on biodiversity and nature’s contributions to people of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. X. Rueda, M. Jones, & S. Polasky (Eds). Bonn, Germany: IPBES Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017
IPCC. (2023). AR6 Synthesis Report: Climate Change 2023. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/. Accessed 22 June 2023.
Kitzmann, N., Caesar, L., Sakschewski, B., Rockström, J., Sakschewski, B., Caesar, L., et al. (2025). Planetary Health Check 2025: A Scientific Assessment of the State of the Planet. https://doi.org/10.48485/pik.2025.017
Klinger, B. A., & Ryan, S. J. (2022). Population distribution within the human climate niche. PLOS Climate, 1(11), e0000086. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000086
Maney, C., Guaras, D., Harrison, J., Guizar-Coutiño, A., Harfoot, M. B. J., Hill, S. L. L., et al. (2024). National commitments to Aichi Targets and their implications for monitoring the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework. npj Biodiversity, 3(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-024-00039-5
McElwee, P. D., Harrison, P. A., van Huysen, T. L., Alonso Roldán, V., Barrios, E., Dasgupta, P., et al. (2024). IPBES Nexus Assessment: Summary for Policymakers. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13850290
Morton, T. (2013). Hyperobjects: Philosophy and ecology after the end of the world. University of Minnesota Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5749/j.ctt4cggm7
Özkaragöz Doğan, E., Uygun, Z., & Akçomak, İ. S. (2021). Can science diplomacy address the global climate change challenge? Environmental Policy and Governance, 31(1), 31–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/eet.1911
Peters, R. J. (1986). Can we slow global warming? BioScience, 36, 140. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310296
Pörtner, H. -O., Scholes, R. J., Agard, J., Archer, E., Bai, X., Barnes, D., et al. (2021). IPBES-IPCC co-sponsored workshop report on biodiversity and climate change. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5101133
Richardson, K., Steffen, W., Lucht, W., Bendtsen, J., Cornell, S. E., Donges, J. F., et al. (2023). Earth beyond six of nine planetary boundaries. Science Advances, 9(37), eadh2458. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.adh2458
Rockström, J., Steffen, W., Noone, K., Persson, Å., Chapin, F. S. I., Lambin, E., et al. (2009). Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society, 14(2). https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-03180-140232
Rosen, W. G. (1997). What's in a name? BioScience, 47, 708–712. https://doi.org/10.2307/1313212
Royal Society & American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2010). New frontiers in science diplomacy: Navigating the changing balance of power. London: The Royal Society. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/New_Frontiers.pdf
Ruffini, P. -B. (2018). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Science-Diplomacy Nexus. Global Policy, 9(S3), 73–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12588
Rüland, A. -L., Andersen, L. H., Hassen, A. K., Kinyanjui, C., Ralfs, A., & Grisci, B. I. (2025). Science diplomacy: A global research field? Findings from a bibliometric analysis of the science diplomacy scholarship of the past twenty years. Scientometrics, 130(8), 4697–4722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05396-x
Sarkar, S. (2021). Origin of the term biodiversity. BioScience, 71(9), 893. https://doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biab071
Sarkki, S., Young, J. C., Vandewalle, M., Heikkinen, H. I., Norum, R., Stenseke, M., et al. (2025). Transformative science–policy interfacing: the case of biodiversity and ecosystem services. Sustainability Science, 20(1), 231–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-024-01593-4
Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. (2020). Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: CBD. https://www.cbd.int/gbo5
Tangley, L. (1985). A new plan to conserve the earth's biota. BioScience, 35(6), 334-341. https://doi.org/10.2307/1310058
United Nations. (1992). Convention on Biological Diversity. Nairobi: UNEP. https://www.cbd.int/convention/
Wilson, E. O., & Peter, F. M. (Eds.). (1988). BioDiversity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Xu, C., Kohler, T. A., Lenton, T. M., Svenning, J. -C., & Scheffer, M. (2020). Future of the human climate niche. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(21), 11350–11355. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1910114117
Belardinelli, S., & Ciccarese, L. (2025). Scientific environmental diplomacy: a key asset for governing the biodiversity crisis. Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology, 14, 32652. https://doi.org/10.14201/art2025.32652
Similar Articles
- Esther Yu, Cecilia Brassett, Edward Choi, Anette Wu, A scoping review of health profession students as stakeholders in science diplomacy , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Lorenzo Delgado Gómez-Escalonilla, R&D policy in the United States and the background of science diplomacy. Historical insights , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Noemí Sanz Merino, Oliver Todt, Europe’s Pretense and Reality for Better Governance in the case of Health Claims Regulation , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Francisco Del Canto Viterale, Introduction to monographic section. Science diplomacy: actors, topics, and challenges , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Janvi Gandhi Kanakia, Dr. Whose access, whose agenda? Artificial intelligence/machine learning expansion in unequal societies: the case of India , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Michael S. Dodge, U.S.A.-Japan space cooperation: modelling new opportunities for space sustainability & data sharing through framework and implementing agreements , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Bárbara Burton, Agustín Barberón, Juan Martín Quiroga, Energy transition from the semiperiphery: challenges of Mission-Oriented Policies in the lithium industry in Argentina , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024): Embracing the Interdisciplinary Nature of STS Studies
- Luis Fernando Castillo-Argañarás, Space diplomacy and international cooperation in disaster management. A case study , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 14 (2025)
- Agustín Piaz, Uranium, “the worst kind of mining”? , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024): Embracing the Interdisciplinary Nature of STS Studies
- Germán Octavio Lopez Riquelme, Héctor Solís-Chagoyán, Diana Verónica Castillo Padilla, Nino Angelo Rosanía-Maza, The Beauty and Importance of Scientific Journals , Artefactos. Philosophical Studies on Science and Technology: Vol. 13 No. 2 (2024): Embracing the Interdisciplinary Nature of STS Studies
You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
+
−