United Nations Environment Programme

A strong Community of Practice (CoP) can be powerful in supporting people to share, generate, and disseminate knowledge. This study evaluates the use of the Communities of Practice (CoP) approach for effective knowledge consolidation in the field of citizen science. Our paper offers an analysis of four CoPs that were set up as part of the European-based 3-year WeObserve project, with distinct themes of (1) co-design citizen engagement; (2) impact and value for governance; (3) interoperability and standards; and (4) the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Participation across the four CoPs fluctuated during their three-year life-time. Three key outcomes emerged from the CoPs. First, a joint identity and understanding were created within and across CoPs through the creation of an inception report by each CoP and through the creation of Citizen observatory (CO) vocabulary, which also served to differentiate such observatories from citizen science (CS) initiatives. Next, scientific papers and technical reports were cooperatively produced by CoP members that represent a synthesis of CoP members’ knowledge. Essential ingredients to the success of these CoPs also included extensive stakeholder engagement and the CoPs being steered by the underpinning values of the CS community. The impacts of the WeObserve CoPs range from the uptake of jointly produced publications, novel cooperative CS projects, new CoPs, joint grant proposals, and the integration of citizen science data into SDG monitoring. This evaluation highlights the diverse and transformative potential of CoPs for citizen science practice.

Recognition and engagement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IP&LCs) and other traditional knowledge (TK) holders in formal biodiversity governance remain limited, despite their significant contribution to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity through their knowledge, innovations, practices, and land stewardship. We conducted the first global assessment of how the 195 countries that ratified the Convention on Biological Diversity self-report on this contribution based on a full content analysis of all of the 2 most recent national reports (NR5 and NR6). The number of countries self-reporting IP&LC and TK roles in the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity increased between the 2 reporting periods and exceeded 55% for NR6. The mention of IP&LC and TK contribution to cultivation and domestication was slightly higher; 59% of countries provided evidence of recognition of this contribution in their NR6. Reference to the holders themselves was much lower, even in the case of cultivation and domestication, and explicit evidence of IP&LC involvement in reporting was minimal, particularly in developed countries. Several reports, particularly European submissions, mentioned traditional land use or community-based practices but considered addressing IP&LCs and TK irrelevant due to terminology confusion. Ahead of the next reporting (NR7), due in 2026, and in line with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which recognizes IP&LCs and TK as integral to its goals, we urge governments to strengthen engagement with IP&LCs and other TK holders, develop and respect partnerships that incorporate their knowledge, practices, and rights, support IP&LC-led conservation, and build on these partnerships in monitoring and reporting on national progress. We aimed to support this process with short-term practical recommendations for upcoming reporting and longer-term strategic guidance and a dataset of illustrative quotes from the analyzed national reports as examples of good practice.

Biodiversity loss is a central dimension of the triple planetary crisis and underscores the need for stronger science-policy engagement to support transformative change. Early-career researchers (ECRs) can make important contributions at the biodiversity science-policy interface but often face barriers, including limited training, networks, time, resources, and institutional recognition. This Brief Report draws on insights from a two-day capacity-building workshop that brought together 20 doctoral and postdoctoral researchers from Swiss institutions and 13 experts from academia, government, and boundary organizations. The workshop aimed to strengthen participants’ understanding of science-policy processes in biodiversity conservation and to support the development of tailored engagement strategies. Based on workshop discussions, practical exercises, and expert exchange, we identify five key components of effective science-policy engagement for ECRs: understanding one’s position, analyzing the policy environment, defining engagement objectives, building networks, and reflecting on success. We argue that science-policy engagement is context-specific and requires strategic, adaptive, and sustained approaches rather than standardized solutions. Strengthening institutional support through training, mentorship, and appropriate incentives is essential to enable ECRs to engage meaningfully in biodiversity governance. Supporting ECRs at the science-policy interface can enhance both their professional development and the contribution of research to biodiversity conservation.

In an era of increased complexity, interdependence, uncertainty and rapidly advancing technology, the ability to identify and swiftly adapt to current and future trends is key to progressing sustainability. Intersecting drivers and stressors are converging to destabilize socioecological systems and reshape national, regional and global outlooks. The intersecting and converging crises of the 21st century have exposed the limits of planning that relies too heavily on linear extrapolations from well-known global/mega-trends. This study explores whether a limited number of emerging trends that only manifest as weak signals today serve as central conduits (super-nodes) for amplifying and accelerating systemic disruption. Using an exploratory mixed-methods design, a global Delphi survey (N = 790, 132 countries) generated 1200 horizon-scan items, inductively coded into 29 clusters. Scenario stress-testing distilled the findings into 280 candidate weak signals—ranked by likelihood, impact, and timing—from which 20 were shortlisted and mapped onto a 20 × 20 influence matrix through structured expert debate. Weighted degree centralities and a 10,000-run bootstrap test identified statistically significant hubs. Results suggest that anticipatory governance can be strengthened by prioritizing high-centrality signals and institutionalizing ongoing weak-signal scanning alongside transparent, multi-source decision-making to avoid cascading risks across planetary-health, economic, and technological systems. At the midpoint of a decade dominated by disruption–climate change, pandemic, geopolitical upheaval, widening inequality, war, misinformation and the rapid rise of Artificial Intelligence–we posit that strategic foresight and informed anticipation is a critical imperative in the pursuit of a global common good and a resilient future.