From sectors to systems

One of the most important messages of the Nexus Assessment is that biodiversity can no longer be understood—or governed—in isolation from food, water, health and climate. These are interconnected components of complex social-ecological systems, where decisions in one domain generate consequences, intended and unintended, in the others. Large-scale tree planting, for example, can support climate goals yet, if poorly designed, may replace species-rich ecosystems with monoculture plantations, undermining biodiversity. Similar trade-offs arise between food production, water management and ecosystem conservation.

This has important implications for research. Better integrated modelling is one priority: approaches capable of representing interactions across sectors and identifying trade-offs and synergies to inform policy choices.

But the challenge extends well beyond modelling. The Nexus Assessment also highlights the need to understand governance across sectors, the conditions under which actors work together, and how diverse knowledge systems and values can genuinely inform decision-making. Questions of participation, equity and whose voices are heard are decisive in determining whether policies are legitimate and durable. Addressing them requires close collaboration between ecologists, economists, political scientists, sociologists and public health researchers.

Understanding transformative change

With the Transformative Change Assessment, we now have compelling evidence that transformative change is both necessary and possible. One of its key contributions is to show that such change requires addressing the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss, including the growing disconnection from nature, the concentration of power and wealth, and the dominance of short-term individual and material priorities in public and private decision-making. These underlying drivers shape the institutions, incentives and values that ultimately determine biodiversity outcomes.

The scientific challenge lies in understanding how these drivers interact, why transformative pathways succeed in some contexts but not others, and how they can be sustained over time. The assessment draws on hundreds of examples worldwide and identifies recurring characteristics of successful transformations, yet also reveals gaps: we still know little about how governance coalitions emerge, how economic incentives interact with changing social norms, or how institutions learn. Comparative research across countries and cultures, with stronger natural–social science collaboration, will be essential for more robust guidance.

Business and biodiversity

The Business and Biodiversity Assessment makes a fundamental point: every business depends on and impacts biodiversity, and therefore has the potential to become a positive agent of change. Biodiversity loss is not only an environmental concern but an emerging systemic risk for businesses, financial institutions and economies—making it a strategic priority essential for long-term resilience.

This shift in perspective raises important scientific challenges. Developing robust methods to assess biodiversity impacts and dependencies across value chains is a major priority, but measurement alone is not enough. We also need a better understanding of how biodiversity-related risks propagate through financial systems, how investment decisions shape biodiversity outcomes, and how financial flows can be redirected towards nature-positive development. This includes, for example, understanding how climate finance and agricultural investment can be aligned with biodiversity objectives.

Perhaps the greatest challenge is not simply to improve how biodiversity is measured, but to develop the evidence and tools that make biodiversity a routine consideration in business strategy, capital allocation and financial decision-making—an opportunity for collaboration between ecologists, economists, finance specialists and management scholars, among others.

A shared scientific endeavour

Taken together, these assessments point to three broad priorities for biodiversity science over the coming decade: developing systems approaches that capture interactions across sectors and scales; building a stronger science of transformative change that explains how institutions, incentives and values interact to shape societal change; and providing the evidence and methods needed to embed biodiversity within business, finance and investment decisions.

Looking back over the first twelve years of IPBES, I am proud of the breadth of the community the Platform has helped build: thousands of experts spanning disciplines, cultures and knowledge systems, working together across boundaries that once separated institutions and fields. That community depends on universities, research institutes, scientific societies and journals that provide space for new ideas.

PLOS Ecosystems has an important role to play. By bringing together a diversity of scientists, it can help strengthen precisely the interdisciplinary community that IPBES assessments show is needed. The science published today will become the evidence assessed tomorrow, and I know that readers, authors and reviewers will see themselves as part of this shared endeavour — helping shape the science that decision makers need to accelerate action for nature and people.