Connected environmental policy: Are things together or are they apart?

In environmental science, we often think about big systems and the deep, interwoven links across the environment. It represents the old adage that everything is connected.

But that poses a problem for policy: if everything is connected and every choice can have consequences for something else, decisions quickly become unmanageable and abstract. Fragmented approaches to policy might be a challenge, but so are approaches that can’t put reasonable boundaries around a single decision.

If we want to meet our environmental objectives, we need to be able to present policy that coherently connects decisions in different places, so that the sum of our actions represents a complete whole. For policies like the Land Use Framework or delivering water system reform, these aren’t abstract questions: the entire purpose of the policy is to bring together different drivers or decisions across government, places, and times.

So how can we account for the meaningful connections between policy decisions in a way that neither mires the pace of urgently needed action, nor tears apart decisions that are fundamentally linked?

In that context, this Essential Environment analysis on the meta-problems facing policy action is tackling the question: how can we manage the paradox of connected and disconnected environmental policy?

Joseph Lewis is Head of Policy at the Institution of Environmental Sciences, working to promote the use of the environmental sciences in decision making. Joseph leads the delivery of the IES Policy Programme, standing up for the voice of science, scientists, and the natural world in policy. He also delivers the IES policy training programme.

Joseph has more than ten years of experience in public policy, including in Parliament and the charity sector. He was recognised on the ENDS Power List 2026 as "a prominent advocate for ensuring environmental science is reflected in public policy".

Together: Why must policy deal with big systems?

When we try to solve a problem like flooding, we can’t just look at how much water there is. We need to think about weather, which determines the frequency and intensity of rainfall. We need to think about soil, because healthy soil absorbs more water and dry, cracked soil repels it. We also need to think about the state of our watercourses themselves, which dictate flow and determine if, and where, a flood happens. And each of these parts of our natural system is shaped by mass drivers like climate change.

Our natural systems are also all affected by social systems, like politics and economics, which decide what we as a society are putting into, and taking from, our natural systems. It’s clear we live in a world connected by complex systems, but it’s also a deeply fragmented world. We have fragmented policies, fragmented approaches to delivering environmental outcomes, and a fragmented understanding of the world around us. Evocatively, habitats are also fragmented, with nature forced more and more into tight boxes. 

It wasn’t always this way. Early medieval English used the word sceaft to refer to a complex concept of creation: the natural world united as a single thing, an abundant creation within which humanity lives. Over the time since, we have lost that deep sense of a connected human and natural world.

Apart: Has humanity lost touch with the value of nature?

We have come a long way since medieval England and the concept of sceaft. While the world has seen a lot of progress, what once was viewed with majesty is now seen by some as a “blocker” to making further progress still. That kind of rhetoric is rife in debate on development and infrastructure, particularly around policies like Biodiversity Net Gain. 

Yet it’s hard to see nature as a blocker to success if we think of ourselves as part of nature, rather than seeing it as something distant from ourselves. An arm is not a blocker to a mouth; they are part of the same body. That idea was picked up by James Lovelock in the Gaia hypothesis, which is controversial from a scientific perspective but remains a useful metaphor for how we can imagine ourselves within nature.

While in some areas, it’s fairly intuitive to see how we are together with nature, other areas can create more challenges. The air we breathe is all around us, and it’s hard to see ourselves as being separate from it, so we feel the stakes of our local air quality much more intensely. When the air is smoky or smoggy, we feel loss, even if we aren’t breathing it directly.

By comparison, something like biodiversity can feel more alien to us, especially if we want to connect ourselves to specific species. For many people, the effects of decisions that affect these parts of the ecosystem may not appear to immediately come back to haunt us. Even if we feel that way, those decisions do have consequences, which are very real for human lives.

Can we overcome complexity in our approach to policy?

In the context of a human world that increasingly sees itself as disconnected from nature, environmental experts have turned to systems to try to rebuild those missing links. We can almost look at systems thinking as a modern sceaft, showing people just how interconnected their lives are with the complex natural world around them.

Yet there are problems in practice. Shaping decisions and behaviour is about more than a deficit of knowledge. There are complex interactions between what we know, what we value, and what we decide to do. We can work with people and communities to build a stronger sense of how their environment is linked to the things they value, but that means coming to terms with the ways that things are connected, even if it’s complex.

This week, the IES held a panel discussion on handling complexity in environmental policy. One of the key messages from the event was that we cannot hide from complexity: we need to be honest about uncertainties and trade-offs, even as we try to meet people where they are and communicate in a way that works for them.

In a closing comment during the panel discussion, IES Vice President Gary Kass said “It is not helpful to tell [someone] that everything is really complex and connected to everything else. You have to find an actionable complexity … Complexity and uncertainty are inherent parts of science. A lot of people believe in this linear model: that if you do X, then Y will happen. It doesn’t work like that, so you sometimes have to challenge worldviews as well.”

How can environmental professionals communicate connectedness?

Environmental experts are on the front lines of communicating complexity. Through professional practice and policy engagement, we are actively involved in shaping how people see the world, and whether they view it as connected or separated: together or apart.

During our discussion on complexity, Ellie Savage, Policy Lead at the IES, shared her advice: “as a knowledge broker and a translator between the environmental science community and policy makers [it’s my job] to make a judgement on what level of complexity to communicate … It’s not about always going for maximum complexity or not, it’s about knowing which parts matter to the decision you’re trying to make and bringing those in at the point they become relevant.”

Environmental science also has a responsibility to go beyond communicating complexity. As we work towards a more sustainable society, we need to understand how we can help people to thrive without compromising on future generations or a flourishing environment. That requires a deeper understanding of the things that people value, the ways they view the world, and how an interconnected world can help us to see the links between what we want and the value of the natural world. 

To help the world reckon with the paradox of connected and disconnected environmental challenges, while still working towards delivering human needs and environmental sustainability, we need to unite people through a positive vision of the future. That vision could restore a sense of inherent connectedness, bringing us closer to a world with thriving people, a healthy economy, and a flourishing environment.

Get involved

The IES is already engaging with policy to support integrated decision making, while defending the complexity of science and the interconnectedness of the natural world.

At the same time, our members are at the forefront of solving environmental challenges and co-creating a sustainable society where people and nature thrive.

• Catch up with our panel discussion on complexity or read our case study on handling complexity and uncertainty in policy engagement.
• Join our Environmental Policy Implementation Community (EPIC) to support effective policy in practice.
• Sign up for our training course on ‘Understanding environmental policy’ and our new course on 'Influencing and Engaging with policy'
• Learn more about recent policy developments in our briefings on clean air, water policy and land and nature policy.
• Find out more by reading the latest articles from Essential Environment, including insights on what the new Prime Minister means for water and our analysis on a more holistic approach to valuing nature. 

If you want to learn more about environmental policy or the training we offer for members, please contact Joseph Lewis, Head of Policy (joseph@the-ies.org).

Header image credit: © Jakob Fischer | Adobe Stock