We live in multiple intertwined crisis, but our policy has not been maintained.

Existing policies for working on environmental issues do not take into account that biodiversity, climate change, and pollution are involved in crisis, causing compound interest and strengthening.

Policy measures taken alone can have unintended results.

These are important surveys of two major evaluation reports on the Inter -Agency Science Policy Platforms on Biodiversity and Economy Service (IPbes) released in the latter half of last year.

One report displays a transformed framework. The other, known as the Nexus Assessment, emphasizes links between biodiversity, water quality, food security, health risk, and climate change.

Both evaluations focus on the issues of feedback and cascade that lead to polyissis. Nexus Assessment encapses it.

“Biodiversity and climate change are mutual dependent, causing compound interests that threaten human health and human happiness.”

The report claims not only urgent and needed change in transformed change to achieve a fair and sustainable world. They encourage science and science to promote more comprehensive and connected approaches and restrict unintended results.

Options for sustainable future

The report suggests the mainstream biological diversity of sector that contributes to the loss. This includes agriculture, fisheries, forestry, urban development, infrastructure, mining, and energy (especially fossil fuels). The mainstream means that all ministries in the government and private industries should consider the biodiversity of their work.

By reducing land competition, you can achieve positive results over biodiversity, food, water, health and climate. These include sustainable healthy diets, decreasing food waste, enhancement of agriculture, and recovery of ecosystems.

Both evaluations provide some effective options for policy to promote the transformed changes in sustainable future. These include the following:

Using a spatial plan to reconnect nature and people to implement natural -based solutions to implement natural -based solutions in urban areas, constituting the use of land and sea resources, and flows with natural assets. Supporting a rich ecosystem, such as forests, soils, mangrove, etc., and indigenous food systems, such as management and strengthening ecosystem services to balance the trade -off to balance between measurement and reporting. I am doing it.

The report mentions more than 70 options and emphasizes the urgency of integrated and integrated efforts.

Despite the clear value of the report, it has already been featured in the 2002 World Summit on Sustainable Development in 2002, combining the effects of water, energy, health, agriculture, and biodiversity. It is necessary to stop the reconciliation and implement a solution to famous problems.

The consensus process must be changed

The IPbes as a whole is against the trends of several failed global summits last year.

The Creator of Biodiversity (COP16) cannot be terminated and must be resumed in February. The annual climate summit (COP19) left many representatives disappointed with the lack of funds. The conference on the fight against desertification (COP16) ended with unfinished main items.

IPBES not only released reports, but also agree to conduct the second global evaluation of biodiversity and ecosystem services this year.

However, despite the ultimate consensus, long and boring negotiations between the government were impaired by national interests, and it was painful to see.

Both evaluations are based on hundreds of scientists who integrate the latest science. However, the politics exhibited during negotiations showed the worst of human efforts.

Why was this? Prenary is composed of 147 member government bureaucrats and diplomats, other governments of the other governments, indigenous people, and academia. Not suitable for evaluating scientific reports. By interpreting science in the report, they diluted the message.

The author in the report tried to respond to the requested changes, but various requests were often canceled with each other. This created a circulation debate and often kept a conclusion from science.

Furthermore, this author was sad and very frustrated by this process. A major IPbes member said, “Scientists will not want to participate in this process right away.

The negotiations must be changed in the future to return science to the center of IPbes evaluation. Similarly, science needs to understand the need to provide better options to develop effective policies.

The plenary session has agreed to improve the IPbes process and find out how to build it based on the first review of 2019. If your future reviews are serious, you need to reconsider this process for final negotiations and approval.

This is another development that helps you understand the between IPbe and the inter -government panels related to climate change related to each role. Scientific alarms are loud in the evaluation by both government organizations. Science did the job. Do policies and decisive people do them?

This article is reissued from conversation under the Creative Commons license. Please read the original article.