t was a “triple COP” year in 2024, with Conferences of the Parties (COPs) for three key multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs)—the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

The three conferences have interlinked agendas seeking to address the drivers behind degradation of lands, seas, biodiversity, and ecosystem integrity—and consequently multiple aspects of human wellbeing.

Over the last three decades, each of these MEAs has inspired countries and regions to adopt relevant policies and regulations. But as a global community we remain far from achieving the sustainable outcomes that we seek. One of the main reasons for this is non-synchronous planning that leads to conflicting outcomes. The pathways chosen to achieve targets of one convention can run counter to those advocated by another. For example, large-scale afforestation in grasslands for carbon credits can impact biodiversity, ecosystem characteristics and the functions of the areas.

Focal areas, means of implementation, synergies

Recently, visible efforts are being made to ensure alignment of initiatives and policy instruments across the three MEAs. This was evident in the negotiations and the range of groups participating at the COPs last year. The effectiveness of these efforts will depend on how they are translated into implementation—where a further degree of streamlining is required with other policy mandates on socio-economic issues (e.g., food security, health, energy, livelihoods, and income).

Let’s consider an example: achieving the goal of zero hunger requires investment in agricultural practices, which needs to be aligned with efforts to ensure that biodiversity and ecosystem functions are not degraded, and agricultural practices do not cause pollution through increased carbon emissions. These practices will also have a direct bearing on the health of people and their psycho–social wellbeing. Unless viewed in a holistic manner, policymakers (and other decision makers) will not consider providing appropriate support (whether as economic incentives, subsidies, necessary financial and technological access, market infrastructure, etc.) that would facilitate integrated achievement of these objectives.

Policy design and strategies need to understand and reflect this socio–ecological complexity. There is sufficient evidence that sustainable pathways exist, which can help us to reach sustainable outcomes—including the principles of “living in harmony with nature” and “leaving no one behind.” Getting governments and other actors to embrace these concepts will depend on at least the following:

Communicating the interdependent and reciprocal nature of people–nature connections in ways that can motivate all actors to take responsibility for their actions towards sustainability

Persuading institutions to implement strategies more transparently, to allow monitoring and accountability at various levels of implementation. Policy support for integrated approaches such as ecosystem–based approaches and nature– based solutions can be strengthened to ensure alignment and coherence between different policy agendas.

Leveraging and communicating lessons from initiatives like One Health, and landscape and seascape approaches that already integrate different sectoral and actor priorities and promote institutional coherence, moving beyond siloed thinking

Promoting uptake of good practices and standards advocated by players operating in the marketplace—such as standard setting agencies and certification systems

Building a case for resource sharing and sharing of expertise across different fields (human, technical, technological, financial, market–related, etc.) to convince actors that the payout and outcomes would be significantly higher.

There is a large set of localized experiences that illustrate these points. But securing political buy–in to translate and upscale them for the good of the “socio–ecological commons” is far from easy. The concept of socio–ecological commons is critical, requiring an understanding similar to environmental commons. It captures the deep systemic interactions between humans and nature, acknowledging the need to build complex partnerships that ensure all components that contribute to a good life (for example, security of food, health, energy, shelter, livelihoods, decent income, various rights related to access to resources and healthy environments, etc.) are easily accessible.

For practical reasons, some countries are already considering joint monitoring of the MEAs. Such efforts need to be leveraged by the MEA secretariats and all interested parties to consult and work in tandem. Although there have been calls for the three conventions to move in this direction, putting in motion active steps would require political commitment. The agendas of upcoming policy meetings this year, such as the G20 in South Africa and the COP30 in Brazil, reflect a desire to leverage multiple interlinked societal and environmental priorities. But we are also faced with increasing pushback by national leaders. It is important that we take urgent and wise steps, building on all of the knowledge at our disposal, and working with diverse partners to ensure that we do not continue the inequitable and unsustainable status quo.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations University.