Ongoing climate change and biodiversity loss pose serious threats to the stability of ecosystems and human well-being, as highlighted in the reports by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). While ambitious goals are being set at the global level, the concrete implementation of climate and biodiversity protection must take place locally. But how can insights from global knowledge processes, such as IPBES and IPCC reports, find their way into state-level policy and administration and serve as foundation for decision-making?
This was the core question addressed at a subnational workshop held on May 5, 2025, in Wiesbaden, organised by RESPIN. The event brought together policymakers from Hesse and Rhineland-Palatinate, staff from various ministries, and expert from IPBES and IPCC to reflect on – and rethink – the interface between scientific knowledge and political action.
A particular highlight of the workshop was the excellent presentations on key processes and outcomes of IPBES and IPCC. Representatives from both German coordination offices for IPCC and IPBES, as well as the IPBES Secretariat, attended and shared insights into their work. Dr Simone Schiele, Head of the IPBES Work Programme at the IPBES Secretariat, and Carola Best from the German IPCC Coordination Office, presented the work of both panels and outlined the policy options emerging from the most recent reports. Dr Yves Zinngrebe, a co-author of the current IPBES report on transformative change, shed light on the conditions required for deep societal transformations. Professor Hans-Otto Pörtner, former Co-Chair of the IPCC Working Group on Climate Impacts, made a compelling case for the close link between climate change and biodiversity loss – and the far-reaching consequences for society.
The key takeaways from these presentations: The knowledge about today’s crises is already available. The pressing question is how to translate this abstract knowledge into political practice at the state and municipal levels.
The plenary discussions focused on how to overcome the main challenges of ensuring that scientific knowledge on climate change and biodiversity loss has a full impact at the local level. It quickly became clear that many municipalities simply lack the capacity to manage the growing complexity of these issues strategically. Biodiversity and Climate Change are still being addressed separately in international, national and sectoral strategies and regulations rather than being approached in an integrated manner. Smaller towns and rural communities, in particular, have limited resources and face numerous competing challenges. Against this backdrop, climate and biodiversity issues often seem abstract and distant compared to other everyday problems.
Volunteer local politicians especially have little time to wade through lengthy technical reports. What is needed are concise, visually engaging information formats that are grounded in everyday experience, easy to understand and immediately actionable, and that clearly convey the relevance and worth of climate and biodiversity protection at the local level.
Another, deeper challenge is the growing fragmentation of society. The divide between urban and rural areas, social groups and educational backgrounds is not only about different lifestyles, but also about language, access to the media and different priorities. Therefore, communication on climate and biodiversity must become more diverse, closer to people's lives, sensitive to different perspectives, and open to new storytelling approaches.
A structural deficit was also openly addressed: the lack of political prioritisation. This uncomfortable truth was openly discussed during the workshop. Therefore, it is all the more important to establish independent interfaces between science and policy that build trust, provide clarity and emphasise that climate change and biodiversity loss are not niche issues, but concerns that affect society as a whole.
However, the workshop was not only about critical assessments; it also produced clear ideas for improvement. Numerous concrete suggestions were made to enhance knowledge transfer in future. At the heart of these was dialogue, across sectoral boundaries and in participatory, well-facilitated formats. It became clear that knowledge needs to reach places where it can have a political impact, not just environmental ministries but all departments, including mobility, health and agriculture.
Particular emphasis was placed on the role of local multipliers, such as committed teachers, grassroots initiatives and regional universities. These individuals and organisations are crucial in translating global findings into practical, locally adapted actions. Sharing positive examples was also identified as a crucial lever. Success stories from municipalities can provide guidance and help convince decision-makers. Regional universities can support this process by acting as intermediaries, translating scientific knowledge into regional realities through living labs, student projects or policy advisory work.
The workshop ended with a shared conclusion: There is no shortage of knowledge; what is lacking are the means to implement it effectively. The task now is to carry these ideas into political and administrative structures, and into the departments, technical units and committees where concrete decisions are made. A national-level workshop in autumn 2025 will build on these insights and develop strategies further to create the structural conditions necessary for integrating existing knowledge into context-specific decision-making processes.
