Harnessing Global Expertise to Tackle the Polycrisis

The iconic blue whale looms over the Milstein Hall of Ocean Life at the American Museum of Natural History.

Other articles in this series on clustering conventions addressing the triple environmental crises—pollution (Stanley-Jones), biodiversity (Schally), and climate change (Azores)—have highlighted the idea of clustering not only conventions but also the science-policy bodies established to serve them. The focus is on the consequences of maintaining the status quo and how “consolidating knowledge” could make a difference.

Azores notes the progressive evolution of environmental challenges and governance since the 1972 Stockholm Declaration on the Human Environment, which led to today’s complex web of multilateral agreements with limited coordination. Since 1945, the UN and its specialised agencies, including UNESCO and FAO, have emphasised the knowledge needed to address such issues. UNEP, founded in 1974, also became increasingly active in this area.

Research by UNESCO and FAO revealed the interconnected nature of global challenges. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) further highlighted the links between climate adaptation, mitigation, and biodiversity in its 2024 “Nexus” assessment.

Both Azores and Schally point to the success of clustering the Basel, Rotterdam, and Stockholm agreements, showing that formal arrangements can improve efficiency, scientific coherence, and policy alignment. They suggest a similar approach for the IPCC, IPBES, and the new Intergovernmental Science-Policy Panel on Chemicals, Waste, and Pollution (ISP-CWP), established in June 2025.

However, questions remain about whether these bodies can be clustered or whether improved cooperation would be more practical. All three face challenges such as weak funding, slow approval processes, data gaps, and duplication of effort—issues that have led to overlapping “outlook” reports by different conventions.

Experts argue that enhancing cooperation, regenerating advisory groups, and adopting continuous reporting could reduce duplication and strengthen policy impact. With urgency mounting in the face of the polycrisis, coordinated science-policy action is seen as vital to deliver transformative change without disruptive restructuring.