Lessons from COP15 on effective scientific engagement in biodiversity policy processes

The Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework was adopted by parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in December 2022. The aftermath of these negotiations provides an opportunity to draw lessons as to how ecological and evolutionary science can more effectively inform policy. We examined key challenges that limit effective engagement by scientists in the biodiversity policy process, drawing parallels with analogous challenges within global climate negotiations. Biodiversity is multifaceted, yet represents only one framing for nature's contributions to people, complicating the nexus between evidence and values in development of the framework's targets. Processes generating biodiversity and driving its loss are multiscalar, challenging development of an evidence base for globally standardized targets. We illustrated these challenges by contrasting development of 2 key elements of the framework. The genetic diversity element of the framework's target 4 is directly related to the framework's primary goals, but its complexity required development of novel engagement skills. The target for protected areas was easily communicated but more indirectly related to biodiversity outcomes; evidence from ecological and social science was essential to communicating the context and limitations of this relationship. Scientists can strengthen the effectiveness of global agreements and address challenges arising from complexity, scaling, capacity limitations, and the interplay of science and values, if they can prioritize communication, consensus‐building, and networking skills and engage throughout the process, from development of an evidence base to implementation.


INTRODUCTION
The global loss of biodiversity is, along with the climate crisis, one of the great challenges facing humanity (IPBES, 2019).The primary global treaties to conserve biodiversity (Convention on Biological Diversity [CBD]) and combat global heating (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change [UNFCCC]) arose out of the 1992 Earth Summit (Allan et al., 2019).Although halting progress in addressing the 2 crises demonstrates the limitations of such agreements, they are essential to society's response to issues that require collective global action (Obura, 2023;Obura et al., 2023).
At the 2022 CBD conference (COP15), parties to the CBD adopted the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), consisting of goals, targets, and indicators designed to reverse the decline of biodiversity and ecosystem services via transformative societal change that also addresses equity issues (CBD, 2022a).The aftermath of COP15 provides an opportunity to draw lessons from how scientists engaged with the process.As scientists participating as observers in the conference, our experience (supported by other accounts: Hughes [2023]; IISD [2022]; Obura [2023]) suggests that although many scientists acknowledged the final agreement as groundbreaking, there was also disappointment that key scientific elements (e.g., quantitative components of targets) were dropped from the text in the final stages of negotiations.
Many factors affect the ability of science to inform global conservation policy.Global conservation targets and indicators must have strong evidentiary basis, be fit for purpose (e.g., feasible to monitor), and effectively communicated to policymakers who possess sufficient political latitude to adopt and implement them (Carroll et al., 2022;Leadley et al., 2022).Using COP15 as an example, we explored how scientists may be able to reduce the disconnect between scientific input and policy outcomes at global and national levels via more effective engagement that overcomes barriers of complexity, scaling, and capacity.
Although our focus is on ecological and evolutionary science, improvements in this area need to be paired with enhanced integration of the social sciences and the roles and contributions of Indigenous peoples and their knowledge (Obura, 2023;Obura et al., 2023;Xu et al., 2021).

THE COMPLEX RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND VALUES IN GLOBAL BIODIVERSITY POLICY PROCESSES
The most widely recognized pathway for science to inform multilateral environmental agreements is via organizations such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations scientific body charged with synthesizing evidence regarding effects of climate change (Allan et al., 2019).Although the IPCC has completed 6 global assessments, the analogous biodiversity body, the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), only delivered its first global assessment in 2019, which documented socioeconomic benefits of biodiversity and declines of species and ecosystems (IPBES, 2019).This landmark report built on previous global assessments by other organizations, including the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Reid et al., 2005).
The CBD process is also designed to incorporate scientific evidence originating from other sources (Figure 1; Table 1).Major nongovernmental and intergovernmental organizations, such as the IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature), synthesize science to inform negotiations (IUCN, 2019).Information from these and other sources is evaluated by several CBD-related groups, including the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical, and Technological Advice (SBSTTA), the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI), and the Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on the Post-2020 Global Biodiversity Framework (CBD, 2022a) (Figure 1).Experts with  1) and the actors involved in this process.The OEWG was formed to help reach agreement on the KMGBF but is not a permanent structure within the CBD.The COP provides the overarching mandates for all other groups.The COP meetings can result in requests to SBSTTA or SBI related to specific technical questions, which may be directed to an AHTEG (small groups of experts who provide technical advice in the preparation and implementation phases).The NBSAPs are the principal instrument for implementation of COP decisions by convention parties.The IPBES is a separate body that compiles knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and is not formally part of CBD, but its reports and expertise inform SBSTTA and OEWG recommendations.Science-focused organizations are engaged throughout the process, from preparation to implementation, and also influence the process indirectly via multiple pathways (stippled shapes).Scientific experts within national delegations also provide advice but are constrained by their respective government's positions.scientific training also serve as part of those national delegations with sufficient resources to support participation.Developing a comprehensive science-informed framework for addressing the biodiversity crisis may be even more challenging than are analogous global climate negotiations, due in part to less-developed scientific support, but also to a more complex boundary between evidence and values in conservation policy, given diverse valuations of nature (IPBES, 2022).There is a well-established division between UN climate bodies charged with synthesizing evidence (IPCC) and those negotiating values-based policy decisions (UNFCCC) (Allan et al., 2019).Global climate outcomes (e.g., limiting heating to no more than 1.5 or 2 • C) are endorsed via values-based choices negotiated by national delegates to the UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP), along with related goals to foster adaptive capacity and associated financial resources.Individual nations then identify "nationally determined contributions" that will contribute equitably to goal achievement, based on values but informed by scientific assessment of alternative policy pathways (Allan et al., 2019).
The biodiversity goals in the KMGBF also reflect valuesbased decisions as to desired outcomes (e.g., halting anthropogenic species extinctions); the targets are represented as science-based estimates of the actions required to achieve desired goals with tolerable risk (Leadley et al., 2022).However, the complexity of the processes that generate and maintain biodiversity complicates the relationship between science and values.The KMGBF evolved from draft to final form via an iterative process (unusually prolonged due to the COVID-19 pandemic and other factors [IISD, 2022]) in which experts assisted negotiators in developing successive versions that were then simplified in the final agreement (IISD, 2022).Among other factors, the diversity of ways in which nature's contributions are valued by different social groups (IPBES, 2022) complicated the nexus between evidence and values in development of the framework's targets.Comparison of successive KMGBF drafts reveals that COP delegates not only made values-based decisions between alternative quantitative thresholds, as is the case in climate negotiations, but also debated qualitatively different versions of the framework itself (Hughes, 2023;IISD, 2022).Science is embedded within and influences sociopolitical processes in complex ways (Obura, 2023;Obura et al., 2023).The impetus for addressing major crises originates from diverse sectors (alliances of nations with specific goals, civil society organizations, the media, and social movements) (Figure 1) (Allan et al., 2019).Scientists communicate with and are influenced by these groups in multiple ways in addition to the formal avenues for participation in IPCC, IPBES, and COP (Figure 1).A holistic understanding of the nexus between evidence and values in biodiversity policy can help scientists contribute more effectively to these processes (Obura, 2023;Obura et al., 2023) (Table 2).This is also evident at national and subnational levels.For example, a central challenge faced by the forthcoming first US National Nature Assessment is how to synthesize diverse valuations of nature (Carroll et al., 2023).

CHALLENGES DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF PROCESSES GENERATING AND MAINTAINING BIODIVERSITY
Although the UNFCCC accords primarily focus on a single toplevel goal of limiting global heating to a specific threshold, the KMGBF has multiple goals (biodiversity conservation, sustainable use, equitable sharing of benefits of biodiversity resources, and provision of financing and capacity), some of which have multiple components (CBD, 2022a).The large number of targets in CBD agreements (23 in the KMGBF and 20 in the previous Aichi targets [CBD, 2010[CBD, , 2022a]]) stems in part from the need to comprehensively address multiple goals and their interlinked drivers (Hughes, 2023;Leadley et al., 2022).
The impetus at COP15 for including a comprehensive set of measurable targets and indicators arose in part from perceived shortcomings of the previous Aichi targets (Xu et al., 2021).Conversely, many delegates were concerned that a large number of targets and indicators increased challenges for communication and monitoring, especially by less well-resourced nations (IISD, 2022).The debate over inclusion of specific quantitative targets thus became linked to a broader debate over the neces-sity for increased funding commitments from wealthy nations for KMGBF implementation (IISD, 2022).
Trade-offs between partially conflicting objectives for KMGBF targets and indicators are illustrated in the elements of the KMGBF that address conservation of genetic diversity.Genetic diversity is a key element of the definition of biological diversity (Díaz & Malhi, 2022) and is central to multiple elements of the KMGBF, especially goal A and target 4.Although quantitative targets (e.g., maintain 95% of genetic diversity over 100 years) have long been used in managing ex situ genetic diversity, they are a recent development in policy (Hoban et al., 2021(Hoban et al., , 2023)).The relative novelty of these concepts allowed for greater input from scientists because delegates and civil society organizations largely had no set positions on the topic.In contrast, many delegations had strong positions on equitable sharing of benefits from genetic digital sequence information (DSI), which is addressed separately in target 13.The Coalition for Conservation Genetics (CCG) (Kershaw et al., 2022), formed in 2020 to improve integration of genetic information into conservation policy, developed and promoted simple genetic indicators, via webinars and other outreach, in partnership with organizations working on related facets of the KMGBF (e.g., IUCN and GEOBON) (Gonzalez & Londoño, 2022).
This process was difficult because of the challenge of communicating to nonspecialist audiences concepts such as genetically effective population size and erosion of genetic diversity over time (Hoban et al., 2023).Communicating the rationale for quantitative targets for genetic diversity was also difficult because loss of genetic elements (alleles) is less observable than ecosystem shifts and species' extinctions.This lack of observability points to a wider challenge for global biodiversity policy as compared with climate negotiations.Although recent advances in climate science (e.g., in attributing extreme weather events to anthropogenic emissions) and direct experience have driven home the severity of climate crisis to an increasing proportion of the public, efforts to measure and broadly communicate the immediate and long-term effects of biodiversity loss are not yet as well developed (Gonzalez & Londoño, 2022;IPBES, 2022).
Several strategies were developed by CCG and others to overcome these challenges.Some genetic concepts, such as inbreeding and adaptive capacity, could be widely understood, especially when paired with concrete examples, such as diversity in tolerance to warm waters in fish or corals, and simple graphics were helpful in translating these ideas to policymakers.Nonetheless, due to the technical nature of genetic concepts, CBD negotiators relied strongly upon recommendations derived by consensus among CCG participants (Hoban et al., 2023;Kershaw et al., 2022).
Although previous CBD targets primarily considered genetic diversity within domesticated species, the commitments to conserving genetic diversity of all wild and domesticated species in the final KMGBF represent a qualitative advance in comprehensiveness.However, rapid resolution in COP15's final days of the hundreds of bracketed (yet to be agreed upon) sections of the late-stage draft KMGBF resulted in substantial simplification (Hughes, 2023).To illustrate, a key goal A commitment to conserve both among-population and within-population genetic diversity, which received broad support from negotiators, was ultimately discarded.A quantitative target based on percentage of genetic diversity maintained was also removed (IISD, 2022).
The complexity of the relevant science may have contributed to the impetus to discard these elements and indicates an unresolved tension between the need for simplicity and comprehensiveness in such agreements (Carroll et al., 2022;Hughes, 2023).Removal of quantitative targets may also reflect an expedient path in the final hours of COP15 to achieve ultimate consensus between parties with different levels of ambition and capacity.This final revision process was opaque to many delegates and observers, including scientists (IISD, 2022).
The simplifications in the final agreement will challenge effective implementation unless addressed in subsequent stages.It is possible that effective indicators and reporting could make up for deficiencies in the KMGBF wording itself (Hughes, 2023), as could decisions made by individual parties during development of National Biodiversity Strategies and Action Plans (NBSAP), the principal implementation instrument for the KMGBF (CBD, 2022a).For the genetic diversity elements, conservation geneticists have addressed concerns over the cost of monitoring by developing indicators that are affordable and applicable in all nations, yet remain directly connected to the desired top-level goal (maintenance of intraspecific diversity) (Table 2) (Hoban et al., 2023).Similar to the use of IUCN Red List status as a proxy for risk of extinction (in place of complex population viability analysis), proposed indicators such as a minimum effective population size of 500 and maintenance of genetically distinct populations are proxies for preventing loss of genetic diversity (in place of gathering comprehensive DNA data from many species).

CHALLENGES DUE TO SCALING AND LOCAL CONTEXT OF PROCESSES GENERATING AND MAINTAINING BIODIVERSITY
In addition to the complexity-related issues, the biodiversity crisis is more challenging to address via global policy than is the climate crisis because it is driven by factors that often operate at less than global extents (Díaz & Malhi, 2022).The indirect nature of how nations benefit from biodiversity beyond their borders fueled debate at COP15; some CBD parties argued against globalizing responsibilities by noting that "biodiversi-ty…is mostly a national issue, unlike the atmosphere that is a global good and a shared resource" (CBD, 2022b).
There are many reasons to contest this perspective (Dasgupta, 2021).Direct instrumental benefits of biodiversity conservation outside a nation's borders occur through reduction in emissions from land use, and conservation of biodiversity that is of global economic benefit (e.g., via new medicines, DSI, or global supply chains) (IPBES, 2022).Interspecific justice also necessitates recognizing the intrinsic value of global biodiversity and noninstrumental costs of its loss (Obura et al., 2023).
Human intergenerational equity (i.e., equity with descendants), a strong focus of the climate debate, is even more pressing for biodiversity as species extinction is effectively irreversible over time frames relevant to global policy (Dasgupta, 2021).Intragenerational equity (i.e., between countries and individuals living now) requires the Global North to support conservation elsewhere to compensate for historical and current global trade and imperialism affecting biodiversity via exploitation, invasive species, and other causes (i.e., loss and damage) (Dasgupta, 2021;Obura, 2023;Obura et al., 2023;Roe et al., 2023).
Nonetheless, the statement by some of the CBD parties disputing the globalized nature of biodiversity contains some truth: there are important contrasts between the spatial scale of the climate and biodiversity crises.Ecological processes maintaining biodiversity (e.g., speciation and generation of intraspecific diversity) operate over smaller extents than does the global climate system (Díaz & Malhi, 2022).Because some drivers of biodiversity loss (e.g., land-use patterns) are more geographically differentiated than are primary drivers of global heating, there is a greater role for diverse knowledge systems and locally differentiated solutions in addressing the biodiversity crisis, a fact widely acknowledged within the COP15 process (Obura et al., 2023) but that nonetheless increases the challenge of developing science-informed global targets.
Two countervailing concerns are at work: the inherent limitations of applying globally standardized targets to conserve biodiversity generated by processes operating at smaller extents and, conversely, the need to secure strong measurable commitments that actually advance resolution of the biodiversity crisis.The 2010 Aichi targets emphasized the first concern by providing "a flexible framework for setting targets at the regional, national and subnational levels…[that avoids] using indicators that are likely to ignore the diversity of circumstances under which measures for conservation and sustainable use are being implemented…this approach places an immense responsibility on parties to diligently set their own targets and monitor progress" (IISD, 2010).With only 6 of Aichi's 20 targets "partially achieved" by the 2020 deadline, the subsequent push to ensure standardized quantitative targets and indicators in the KMGBF arose in part from the perception that the Aichi agreement's flexibility came at the expense of accountability (CBD, 2020;Xu et al., 2021).This issue of flexibility versus accountability has also been central to recent global climate negotiations (Allan et al., 2019).
These countervailing concerns are illustrated by the KMGBF's target 3, a commitment to effectively conserve and manage 30% of land and seascapes by 2030.Support for this 30 × 30 target stems from evidence that protected areas can play an essential role in sustaining biodiversity in the face of anthropogenic pressures and the feasibility of tracking increases in protected area designations (Woodley et al., 2019).Area-based thresholds can potentially be identified in the response of biodiversity or ecosystem processes to varying levels of intact habitat or from syntheses of systematic conservation plans from many regions (Carroll & Noss, 2022).The CBD's 2010 Aichi targets included a target to conserve at least 17% of terrestrial area by 2020 (CBD, 2010), which helped stimulate a tripling of the global protected area network in the span of a few decades (Woodley et al., 2019).The 30% target appears to have been selected as representing an ambitious yet feasible increase from Aichi's 17% target, rather than based on evidence for specific percentage thresholds (Carroll & Noss, 2022).
The sufficiency of the 30% target may vary by locations: regions with higher beta diversity may require greater percentage protection to safeguard the same proportion of their species (Carroll & Noss, 2022).Even within a single national territory, overachievement of goals for 1 region or species cannot counterbalance biodiversity loss elsewhere (Dinerstein et al., 2020).The global pattern of distribution of biodiversity places responsibility on megadiverse nations (often in the Global South) that is often disproportionate to their economic capacity (Shen et al., 2023).
The 30 × 30 target's history provides an informative counterpoint to the elements of the KMGBF focused on intraspecific genetic diversity, allowing us to contrast the role in COP15 negotiations of a complex target directly related to achieving elements of the top-level biodiversity goal with a simpler target indirectly related to biodiversity outcomes.The simplicity of the concept of 30 × 30 facilitated broad uptake and organization in the lead-up to COP15.The High Ambition Coalition for Nature and People (HAC), an alliance of leaders from a subset of CBD parties and other groups, was formed to advance 30 × 30 and related commitments (HACNP, 2021).In contrast to the qualitative advance represented by KMGBF elements related to genetic diversity, the 30 × 30 target resulted in a quantitative enhancement of ambition for actions (creating effective protected and conserved areas) that were already occurring.
Although the 30 × 30 target is attractive because it is simple to communicate and monitor, the link between target achievement and biodiversity outcomes is not straightforward if national governments focus solely on the areal extent of protection without considering their location or effectiveness (Barnes et al., 2018;Carroll et al., 2022).Goodhart's law states that when a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be an accurate metric, because it can be manipulated (i.e., disconnected from desired biodiversity and equity outcomes) (Newton, 2011).Engagement by scientists and civil society organizations played a major role in ensuring that HAC's stated goals situated the 30 × 30 target in the context of broader outcomes via calls for new protected areas to conserve ecologically representative, well-connected, intact ecosystems that would support Indigenous-led conservation and other equity goals (HACNP, 2021).
Organizations with a long history of involvement in protected area planning were active in developing draft targets and standards related to 30 × 30 (e.g., IUCN, 2019).Key peerreviewed scientific publications in the lead-up to COP15 played a dual role: supporting target development by examining the implications of alternative thresholds (Allan et al., 2022) and communicating the limitations of such targets unless placed within a broader framework focused on both conservation and equity goals (Barnes et al., 2018).Although time will tell to what extent national implementations of the KMGBF's target 3 will consider biodiversity and equity outcomes, implementation of the Aichi framework's protected area target has led to increased support for Indigenous-led conservation in Canada and other nations (ICE, 2018).
Although we examined only 2 of the 23 KMGBF targets here, the challenges of complexity and scale are evident in other elements of the framework.The debate over targets for ecosystem area and integrity represents an example intermediate between the genetic and 30 × 30 case studies.Defining and mapping ecosystems are in themselves challenging, especially under shifting climates (Dobrowski et al., 2021).Monitoring and setting global targets, given the range in threshold behavior (e.g., sensitivity to ecosystem collapse), present additional difficulties (Nicholson et al., 2021).In this context, delegates were concerned about the feasibility of monitoring as well as the rationale for specific quantitative globally standardized targets.Similar to the case with genetic goals, scientists responded by developing and promoting metrics that offered an adequate compromise between feasibility and relationship to outcomes (Nicholson et al., 2021).As with the 30 × 30 target, scientists also communicated the necessity of adapting ecosystem conservation metrics and strategies to national and subnational contexts (Table 2) (Carroll et al., 2022;Nicholson et al., 2021).

STRENGTHENING THE CAPACITY OF SCIENTISTS TO ENGAGE IN THE POLICY PROCESS
All multilateral environmental negotiations, including COPs, are fundamentally political processes.However, the CBD process is designed with a clear commitment for scientific underpinning of its various products and actions through the establishment of support bodies (e.g., SBSTTA; Figure 1), ad hoc technical expert groups, and formal expert input (e.g., Leadley et al., 2022).The fundamental tension between the stated intention for evidence-based targets and the ultimate negotiation process is accentuated in the case of the biodiversity COPs by the multifaceted and complex nature of CBD top-level goals, the complex boundary between evidence and values in conservation policy, and the multiscalar nature of processes generating and threatening biodiversity.
The final KMGBF was influenced by intergovernmental reports (IPBES, 2019(IPBES, , 2022)), key scientific publications, and participation of scientists in the process individually and collectively (Kershaw et al., 2022) (Figure 1).However, major challenges were also evident in the manner in which science originating from both the peer-reviewed literature and auxiliary CBD bodies (e.g., proposals for quantitative targets and evidence to support target language) informed the COP15 outcome, especially given the ultimate simplification of the text (a pattern common to many COPs).Although larger national delegations include scientifically trained negotiators, nations with limited resources may be represented by a single delegate, which limits capacity to review extensive scientific literature or even attend round-the-clock negotiations.One COP15 delegate offered the hope that limitations evident in the "recurring pattern of finalizing complex, voluminous, and difficult negotiations will eventually lead to changes in the way such negotiations are tackled from the beginning" (IISD, 2022).Because IPBES-associated experts were key informal advisors to OEWG participants throughout KMGBF development, one improvement could be better integration of IPBES expertise throughout the CBD process (Table 1), analogous to how UNFCCC has worked to strengthen linkages with IPCC (Table 2).
Notwithstanding a need for continued improvements in the process of CBD negotiations, here we focused on enhancing the ability of scientists to engage effectively within the limitations of the existing process by broadening awareness of alternative pathways for engagement, improving engagement skills and capacity, and focusing on opportunities within implementation (Table 2).The KMGBF provides a framework whose limitations can be addressed during implementation at the global and national levels (Obura, 2023).It is important to view the adopted texts in the context of the larger sociopolitical process, in which targets can stimulate conservation ambition despite their limitations (Carroll et al., 2022).In addition to their use in monitoring progress, well-crafted indicators can compensate to some extent for vaguely worded targets.
Much work around indicators will occur leading up to COP16 in 2024 within the technical groups addressing indicator selection and building processes to support nations with capacity and resource limitations (Figure 1).Other biodiversity-related global agreements with a more specific focus than the CBD can help advance KMGBF implementation via established liaison groups and other communications channels.These include, for example, CITES (relevant to KMGBF target 5), CMS (target 4), UNESCO (targets 1-4), and UNFCCC (targets 8, 11).Parallel opportunities for continued scientific engagement exist within other intergovernmental bodies (e.g., IPBES) and at the national level as national reports and action plans are developed (CBD, 2022a).
Scientists should be aware that successful outcomes will require engaging with global policy processes over the long term, which accentuates capacity limitations and the need for substantial new support particularly for experts from the Global South.For example, by the second OEWG meeting (February, 2020), the KMGBF's general structure and much of the wording were already in place, and by the fourth meeting (June, 2022), there was strong resistance to adding new text.There are also opportunities outside the formal process (e.g., via online comment submission), but these may require membership in a CBD-recognized organization, such as a large civil society organization.Scientists' organizations (well-established groups, such as IUCN and GEOBON [Bolam et al., 2023;Gonzalez & Londoño, 2022], and newer groups, such as CCG) provide a means of leveraging work of individual experts, but require that researchers focus on consensus rather than the debate more typical of scientific convenings (Kershaw et al., 2022).Universities can support engagement by academics via training and by revising reward structures to recognize such engagement.
The challenges discussed above, arising from complexity, scaling, capacity limitations, and the interplay of science and values, are generally relevant within global, national, and subnational policy processes, which must be leveraged in concert to effectively address the biodiversity crisis.Scientists can be key communicators in explaining the necessity of applying individual targets within a larger framework rather than in isolation.Organizations, such as scientific societies, can promote engagement post-COP15 via planning and implementation processes, including the periodic assessment and national reporting as required by CBD parties (Hoban et al., 2021) (Figure 1).Finally, scientists should recognize and prioritize the role of engagement with the broader society.The complementary role of top-down and bottom-up pressures for policy change has been evident in global response to the climate crisis (Allan et al., 2019), and both are key in motivating the transformative societal change necessary to halt and reverse biodiversity loss (Obura et al., 2023).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A. DeGemmis provided comments on the manuscript.EU COST Action GBIKE and the Morton Arboretum provided support to S.H. in attending CBD meetings.

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1The 3 phases of development of the Convention on Biological Diversity's Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF) (preparation, negotiation, and implementation) in which scientists can engage with the process individually and collectively (Table1) and the actors involved in this process.The OEWG was formed to help reach agreement on the KMGBF but is not a permanent structure within the CBD.The COP provides the overarching mandates for all other groups.The COP meetings can result in requests to SBSTTA or SBI related to specific technical questions, which may be directed to an AHTEG (small groups of experts who provide technical advice in the preparation and implementation phases).The NBSAPs are the principal instrument for implementation of COP decisions by convention parties.The IPBES is a separate body that compiles knowledge on biodiversity and ecosystem services and is not formally part of CBD, but its reports and expertise inform SBSTTA and OEWG recommendations.Science-focused organizations are engaged throughout the process, from preparation to implementation, and also influence the process indirectly via multiple pathways (stippled shapes).Scientific experts within national delegations also provide advice but are constrained by their respective government's positions.

TABLE 1
Opportunities for scientific engagement in global biodiversity policy.*

TABLE 2
Recommendations for improving scientific engagement in development of biodiversity targets and indicators, especially those that are complex or multiscalar.Focus on topics most relevant to stage of process (e.g., percentage thresholds may not be relevant at initial stage) Work at multiple scales including implementation at national and subnational levels via national reports and national biodiversity strategies and action plans Response Complexity of interactions between science and values Increase understanding of dynamics of science-values interactions within policy process Collaborate with and support work of social scientists and Indigenous peoples and local communities Integrate alternative valuation frameworks limitations Work through existing scientific organizations and ad hoc groups Develop and provide training in effective engagement and outreach Advocate for resources, especially for scientists from least developed countries Better integrate Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services expertise into Convention on Biological Diversity process Revise academic and agency reward structures