Conservation biology is continually developing new tools and concepts that contribute to our understanding of ecosystems. In too many cases, however, that leaves scientists positioned only to track the loss of these systems. So far, researchers have been less effective at achieving the level of impact on policy decisions needed to implement actual conservation measures.

As long as this remains the case, it is hard to see how political pledges to conserve global biodiversity will be fulfilled. Under the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, for example, 188 nations are supposed to be taking steps to ensure that the rate of biodiversity loss slows down by 2010. But at the current rate of progress, it is hard to see how nations will reach even this modest goal.

The development of tools to monitor global biodiversity has helped to promote awareness of the scale of the environmental challenges facing the planet. But appropriate responses to these challenges are inevitably political and economic in nature. The considerable advances in monitoring and understanding made in conservation science cannot themselves generate such responses.

Translating the ramifications of environmental and conservation science into practical solutions requires much more work to close the gap between conservation biologists and the policy-makers and environmental managers who take action on the ground. One such effort is the RUPES programme run by the Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre, which is bringing together land managers, conservation groups, development agencies and researchers to design a system to reward mountain communities in Asia for the environmental services they provide by conserving local habitat.

If the drive for conservation comes only from scientists and a few allies in the environmental movement, ameliorative action won't get far. Economists and other policy-makers inside powerful government departments and development agencies are needed to design and develop plans to tackle the problem on a meaningful scale.

There is an increasing realization that economic arguments should be used to persuade policy-makers to protect environmental resources.

The most comprehensive survey yet of the economic and other benefits that natural ecosystems provide — the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published earlier this year — highlights the urgent need for closer dialogue between these different parties. The potential advances to be made from such discussion have never been more apparent. There is an increasing realization that economic arguments should be brought to bear in persuading policy-makers to protect environmental resources (see 'Dollars and sense'). The United Nations and the World Bank are, at least in their public statements, stressing the potential of environmental conservation for improving quality of life in poor countries (see Nature 437, 180; 2005).

Putting these ideas into practice will require unprecedented collaboration between ecologists, economists, statisticians, businesses, land managers and policy-makers. As researchers continue to gather information about the kinds of benefits that ecosystems provide, it is critical that their findings are disseminated far beyond the scientific community.

This requires national institutions such as the US Department of the Interior, and international ones like the World Bank, to ensure that they have the necessary mechanisms and scientific expertise in place to absorb the information. Third parties, such as the H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment in Washington DC, can also help to forge the necessary interactions.

A fuller dialogue will greatly benefit researchers, who can use it to establish exactly what kinds of information policy-makers and environmental managers need in order to translate science into effective action. Most of all, it will help the environment, by encouraging conservation policies that are soundly based on the facts.