Knowledge brokerage on biodiversity and ecosystem services can apply communication tools such as policy briefs to facilitate the dialogue between scientists and policymakers. There is currently considerable debate on how to go beyond the linear communication model, outdated in theoretical debate but still often implicitly leading interaction with policy. In this paper, we provide recommendations to scientists in the field of biodiversity and ecosystem services for developing policy briefs with increased impact and that are adapted to the needs of the audience. We also highlight the challenges of addressing the key criteria of credibility, relevance, legitimacy and iterativity that often lead to trade-offs.

The European Union (EU) 2020 Biodiversity strategy will soon come to an end and may not have been as successful as envisioned. In the current context of the global biodiversity crisis, the European Commission, the research community, and broader society cannot risk another, likely ineffective, attempt by the EU to halt biodiversity loss after 2020. Through the development of the EU post 2020 Biodiversity Strategy, the scientific community of the ALTER-Net and EKLIPSE networks saw a unique opportunity to make a difference for biodiversity in Europe by better involving scientists, policy makers, and society. We developed an innovative, transparent, and collaborative process—called the multiphased, iterative, and consultative elicitation of scientific expertise (MICESE) method. This process allowed us to produce a set of 12 key messages developed by scientists for the EU to prioritize in the development of the new post 2020 biodiversity strategy. These key messages were structured according to their systemic value, scale, and nature. We provide insights and analyses of the new MICESE method before reflecting on how to improve the future involvement of scientists in science–policy interfaces.

Global commitments to ecosystem restoration are accelerating rapidly in response to biodiversity loss, climate change, and international targets such as the EU Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Kunming–Montréal Global Biodiversity Framework. Yet, as restoration agendas expand, far less attention has been given to the potential unintended consequences of ecosystem change, particularly those related to zoonotic disease emergence, altered host and vector dynamics, and social vulnerabilities linked to land-use transitions. Understanding how policies anticipate these risks is essential for ensuring that restoration efforts contribute effectively to planetary health.This presentation draws on insights from the RESTOREID project policy appraisal, which systematically appraises international restoration policies to understand whether, and how, they address disease-related risks. Our findings reveal a marked imbalance. While restoration policies commonly highlight positive outcomes such as enhanced ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, climate resilience, and socioeconomic co-benefits, they seldom acknowledge potential negative consequences. Issues such as increased wildlife–human contact, habitat configurations that favour disease hosts, biosecurity risks associated with restoration materials (e.g., pathogen contamination in nurseries), and social impacts such as displacement or land-use conflict are largely absent. RESTOREID’s analysis shows that these gaps could undermine restoration outcomes if not integrated into long-term planning and adaptive management.Only a small subset of policies referenced human health considerations, and very few incorporated One Health principles, risk assessment procedures, or monitoring mechanisms relevant to disease emergence. The gap is particularly notable given the growing scientific literature documenting links between land-use change, ecological restoration, and zoonotic risk. In several regions, this results in a “double blind spot”, that is insufficient empirical evidence combined with policy frameworks that do not request or integrate such information.We argue that restoration policy must evolve to become more risk-aware and health-informed, not to hinder restoration efforts but to strengthen their long-term sustainability. Integrating cross-sectoral expertise, embedding social safeguards, and establishing indicators for monitoring unintended consequences are critical steps. By proactively addressing these risks, restoration initiatives can better support both biodiversity recovery and human well-being in an era of accelerating ecological change.