Article image

The Fragile Bridge Between Science and Statecraft in a Warming World

Wednesday, 12 November 2025 05:14

Summary

Global environmental governance relies on a complex institutional architecture designed to translate scientific complexity into actionable policy. This system is anchored by integrated assessments (IAs) and science-policy interfaces (SPIs), which synthesise vast, multi-disciplinary knowledge on interconnected crises like climate change and biodiversity loss. Organisations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) use sophisticated modelling frameworks to construct plausible future scenarios, providing a crucial evidence base for international agreements. However, this vital mechanism faces profound challenges in a political landscape increasingly defined by 'post-truth' dynamics, where scientific evidence is often contested, misunderstood, or selectively applied. The effectiveness of these interfaces now hinges on their ability to foster trust, embrace diverse forms of knowledge, and navigate the inherent political nature of policy-making to secure a sustainable future.

The Architecture of Evidence-Based Governance

The escalating complexity of global environmental crises, from stratospheric ozone depletion to climate change and biodiversity loss, necessitates a formal mechanism to bridge the enduring gulf between the scientific community and the political sphere . These formalized mechanisms are known as science-policy interfaces (SPIs), and they operate as essential conduits in the arena of global environmental governance . SPIs are tasked with synthesising, translating, and communicating scientific findings, responding to the evidence needs of decision-makers, and improving access to relevant knowledge . At the heart of the SPI function lies the process of integrated assessment (IA), which is often described as a scientific 'meta-discipline' . Integrated assessment involves combining and interpreting knowledge about a specific problem domain, drawing from numerous disciplines and a wide range of methods, to make it available for societal learning and decision-making processes . The roots of integrated assessment in environment and sustainable development can be traced to public policy issues involving long-range and long-term environmental management . Environmental issues cannot be addressed in isolation because they are strongly interconnected, meaning that changes in one area, such as climate change, will impact others, including biodiversity, air quality, and land degradation . This interconnectedness requires an integrated approach to identify synergies and trade-offs among the policies, practices, and technologies used to address individual issues . The ultimate challenge for this governance structure is to manage an ever-changing planet sustainably in the face of rapid demographic shifts, economic growth, technological innovations, and evolving socio-political conditions . Successfully addressing issues of the global commons, such as climate change and stratospheric ozone depletion, requires coordinated global action, which is precisely the mandate that SPIs and IAs are designed to support .

The Global Assessment Machinery

The most visible and influential models of SPIs are the international bodies that synthesise science for global conventions . The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in 1988, stands as the leading global authority on climate science . The IPCC’s policy-relevant assessments on the impacts of global warming have been instrumental in informing key benchmarks, such as the 1.5°C threshold to limit global warming, which is enshrined in the Paris Agreement . The first assessment produced by the IPCC in 1990 played an integral role in supporting the negotiations that culminated in the adoption of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) . Following the IPCC’s success, policymakers tackling other global environmental challenges sought to emulate and build upon its model . The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) was established in 2012 to focus on biodiversity loss and nature’s contributions to people . IPBES distinguishes itself by explicitly integrating indigenous and local knowledge into its assessments, offering a more holistic understanding of environmental change . Despite their individual successes, a significant challenge remains in the limited collaboration between the IPCC and IPBES, which has fostered siloed approaches to the twin crises of climate change and biodiversity loss . This divide reflects differences in their mandates and methods, but the consequence is fragmented policies and missed opportunities for synergy . Strengthening coordination between these two bodies is essential to support better informed policy design, avoid harmful trade-offs, and promote co-benefits in global environmental policy . The design of these bodies ensures they are not policy prescriptive, meaning they provide the scientific basis for informed policy but do not dictate specific political actions .

Modelling the Future and National Expertise

The production of integrated assessments relies heavily on sophisticated computational models that simulate the complex interactions between human activities and the environment . The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL), a national institute for strategic policy analysis in the fields of environment, nature, and spatial planning, plays a key role in this international assessment landscape . PBL’s core tasks include conducting outlook studies, analyses, and evaluations, with an integrated approach considered paramount to improving the quality of political and administrative decision-making . The agency developed the IMAGE (Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment) integrated assessment modelling framework . IMAGE is a computer model that simulates the environmental consequences of human activities worldwide by integrating land, energy, climate, and policy models within a single framework . The model’s main goal is to provide insight into the most important interactions between these systems, allowing researchers to explore long-term pathways for future environmental and sustainable development problems . Earlier versions of the IMAGE model have been used to support various international assessments, including those by the IPCC, UNEP’s Global Environment Outlooks, and the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment . By producing scenarios of climate policy and climate change in terms of energy and land use, and emissions of greenhouse gases, the IMAGE framework helps to construct the 'plausible futures' that are necessary for informed policy development . The work of national bodies like PBL, which operates as an autonomous and scientifically sound research institute within the Dutch government structure, is crucial for translating global assessments into context-specific national and sub-national realities .

Navigating the Post-Truth Landscape

The effectiveness of the science-policy interface is increasingly challenged by a political environment often described as a 'post-truth society,' where expertise and evidence are subject to intense debate and contestation . This socio-political difficulty hinders the process of using scientific evidence to meet major global challenges . In this environment, the work of scientists and policymakers, who are inherently human, can be influenced by their own politics, values, and beliefs . This situation creates a risk of unethical practices, such as 'cherry picking' scientific findings to fit predetermined or politically expedient ends . Such selective use of evidence risks delegitimising the authority of policymakers and subject matter experts, further eroding public trust . The challenge for practitioners of integrated assessment is to navigate this web of complexity and address knowledge controversies that can escalate into public contestation . A robust SPI must embrace a broader view of what constitutes evidence, recognising that science and the evaluation of scientific evidence cannot be divorced from the political, cultural, and social debate that surrounds major issues . This requires a methodology that fully integrates scientific investigation with political debate and social discourse . Strategies to deal with contested knowledge include transparent evidence evaluation, which combines independent assessment to test validity with deliberation to discover how evidence is perceived, misunderstood, or ignored . Furthermore, the rise of digital communications and social media presents both opportunities and problems for evidence sharing, emphasising the need for creative and innovative visualisation to shape policy discourse .

From Assessment to Action

The evolution of the science-policy interface over the last decades has been driven by a shift in focus from merely identifying problems to facilitating the uptake of solutions . This transition requires a more assertive engagement and iterative interaction between scientists and decision-makers to foster a better understanding of their very different perspectives and approaches . Tackling the complex nature of socio-environmental systems demands diverse teams that successfully spark creativity and novel insights by bringing together actors from across countries and sectors . The most effective SPIs are those that are in a constant 'learning mode,' adapting and refining their global processes . A key element of this evolution is the co-design and co-production of research activities and assessments, ensuring that decision-makers and a wide range of stakeholders are appropriately involved . Stakeholders, including businesses, city networks, and non-governmental organisations, must be closely involved in policy design because they understand the practicalities of implementing specific policies . Ultimately, the success of integrated assessments in environmental governance depends on demonstrating that there is no dichotomy between economic growth and environmental protection . Environmental degradation actively undermines sustainable economic growth, and appealing to the self-interest of politicians and the general public is often necessary because human self-interest underpins most decisions . While cost-effective and equitable approaches to address environmental issues exist or can be developed, their implementation requires political will and moral leadership . The SPIs provide the credible scientific information essential for informed policy formulation, but the final step—the translation of non-prescriptive knowledge into concrete, coordinated global action—rests with the political sphere .

Conclusion

The machinery of integrated assessments and science-policy interfaces represents a critical, yet inherently imperfect, attempt to rationalise environmental governance in the face of planetary crises. Institutions like the IPCC, IPBES, and national bodies such as the PBL have successfully established a global standard for synthesising complex, multi-disciplinary evidence, moving beyond siloed scientific domains to model the interconnected fate of climate, biodiversity, and human well-being. However, the utility of this evidence is constantly tested by the political realities of a fragmented world and the corrosive effects of 'post-truth' dynamics, which weaponise uncertainty and contest expertise. The future efficacy of these interfaces will not be determined solely by the sophistication of their models or the rigour of their science, but by their capacity to build trust, integrate diverse knowledge systems, and foster a shared societal discourse that acknowledges the political nature of evidence use. The challenge is no longer merely a scientific one of generating knowledge, but a profound governance challenge of ensuring that political systems possess the integrity and will to act upon the knowledge they commission, thereby securing the sustainable futures that the assessments were designed to illuminate.

References

  1. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface

    Supports the discussion on the challenges of linking conservation to policy concerns like economy and security, and the critical role of international assessments.

  2. The science-policy interface on ecosystems and people: challenges and opportunities

    Provides details on IPBES, the need for iterative interaction, and the importance of diverse teams in SPIs.

  3. PBL - CD-LINKS: PBL

    Confirms PBL's role in international assessment of global environmental change, the IMAGE model, and its involvement in IPCC scenarios.

  4. Understanding Science-Policy Interfaces - Environmental Information: Use and Influence

    Supports the discussion on the human element in SPIs, the influence of politics/values, the impossibility of true objectivity, and the risk of 'cherry picking' evidence.

  5. Turning science into policy: challenges and experiences from the science–policy interface - PMC - NIH

    Provides context on the interconnectedness of environmental issues, the need for coordinated global action, and the necessity of demonstrating that environmental protection supports sustainable economic growth.

  6. Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface

    Discusses the debate over 'post-truth' politics, the need to integrate scientific investigation with political debate, and the role of transparent evidence evaluation.

  7. Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface

    Reinforces the points on 'post-truth' politics, the necessity of a broader view of evidence, and the methodology for integrating science and social science data.

  8. Integrated assessments for environmental policy in the 'post-truth' society - PBL

    Defines integrated assessment (IA) as a 'meta-discipline,' discusses its roots in long-term environmental management, and addresses the challenge of knowledge contestation in a 'post-truth' society.

  9. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency | Land Portal

    Details PBL's mission, core tasks (outlook studies, analyses, evaluations), and its integrated approach to strategic policy analysis.

  10. Strengthening the Science-Policy Interface: A gap analysis | Agrinatura

    Supports the discussion on the evolution of SPIs from problem identification to solution uptake and the need to involve non-state actors like businesses and NGOs in policy design.

  11. A strong science-policy interface now for climate and biodiversity

    Details the IPCC and IPBES, their respective roles, the 1.5°C benchmark, the integration of indigenous knowledge, and the challenge of siloed approaches between the two bodies.

  12. Integrated Assessment of Global Environmental Change with IMAGE 3.0 - Model description and policy applications

    Describes the IMAGE integrated assessment modelling framework, its purpose, and its use in supporting international assessments like the IPCC and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

  13. IMAGE - Integrated Model to Assess the Global Environment

    Further defines the IMAGE model as a framework that simulates environmental consequences by integrating land, energy, climate, and policy models.

  14. Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency - Wikipedia

    Provides details on PBL's status as an autonomous Dutch government research institute and its core functions in policy appraisal.

  15. Integrating evidence, politics and society: a methodology for the science–policy interface - ResearchGate

    Further supports the discussion on 'post-truth' politics and the need for a methodology that integrates scientific investigation with political debate.

  16. The science–policy interface: the role of scientific assessments—UK National Ecosystem Assessment | Proceedings of the Royal Society A - Journals

    Discusses the need for co-design and co-production of research, the importance of identifying co-benefits (e.g., climate and biodiversity), and the necessity of political will.

  17. Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions

    Defines SPIs as formalized mechanisms, highlights the IPCC as the most visible model, and details the establishment and functions of IPBES.