Communicating climate change and biodiversity loss with local populations: Exploring communicative utopias in eight transdisciplinary case studies

The paper raises some critical and topical points for the transition from current still Global North-dominated approaches to research for sustainability to knowledge co-production. I have a general comment, and a few specific comments to further clarify the findings and overall narrative of the paper, and ensure that the paper is in line with current thinking and practice in this area.

On a general note, the article does not come across as a fully coherent line of argumentation: are the authors actually challenging quite fundamentally the idea of "science communication" to ensure post-colonial moments (which seems to be necessary in the light of thier findings on deeper understanding of power and other barriers, as mentioned in the conclusions) or are they suggesting some adjustments to "communication" as generally understood and pracitces in Global North-led research projects? Some of the discussion throughout the paper (and the abstract) seems to be more aligned with the latter conclusion.

On more specific points, I would encourage the authors to think about some questions that appear between the lines of their article, mainly to do with their own self-reflection:

- isn't there also a question of training Global North scientists in understanding indigenous and local knowledge, before even starting to design a research project that will rely on other knowledge systems? In various points in the article, the assumption is that "stakholders" in the Global South need to understand the framing and terms of researchers, not the other way around, and "communication" helps stakeholders to understand researchers mainly (even if sometimes it also helps researchers better understanding local knowledge). This is critical for some of the assumptions that emerge in the paper ("biodiversity" is a complex concept for local communities, whereas their own knowledge and lived experiences may actually have more to do with and say on complexity than our own/international notions of biodiversity).

- should researchers consider indigenous and local knowledge holders as "co-researchers" as part of knowledge co-production, rather than "essential for data collection and policy implementation" (p 17). Isn't this in itself a barrier to post-colonial research practices? And how does it speak to the authors' conclusions (or has it fallen through the cracks)?

- what have the authors learnt about research co-design with Indigenous and local knowledge holders (p 15): is this  a matter of communication or does it go deeper/elsewhere?

- there is no (self)-reflection in the article about the role of local academic researh and researchers in 1) supporting research co-design; 2) providing an essential preparation for Global North-researchers before engaging in co-designing research projects and 3) in implemenation and post-implementation of knowledge co-creation projects. The disregard for prior local academic research contributes to misunderstandings and inaccurate assumptions by Global North-led research projects, missed opportunities for connected with pre-existing trusted relationships and ensuring fair and equitable benefit-sharing from research projects in terms of recognition, mutual learning and long-lasting enhancements in research capacities in the Global South.

- please make sure you use the correct spelling of "Colombia" (not "Columbia") throughout the article

The topic of the paper is particularly interesting, and the methodology is properly described, as well as all the case studies. In addition, the paper can be an effective support for project coordinators in planning their work with local communities in different environments and socio-economic conditions.
I only have some minor suggestions:

Page 3, Paragraph 4 - I suggest authors to highlight more clearly the relations between traditional knowldge and climate change. How traditional knowledge can effectively contribute to climate change mitigation/adaptation? How it can contribute to biodiversity conservation?

Page 5, Last Paragraph - I suggest authors to consider also the following issue to strenghten the link between traditional knowledge and biodiversity conservation. Protected Areas, established with the purpose of protecting biodiversity, sometimes neglect the role of traditional knowledge and of traditional agro-forestry activities in shaping the landscape and in creating different habitats and microhabitats. The paradox is that these Protected Areas prohibit those traditional activities that have allowed a high biodiversity and therefore are the reason of the recognition as a protected area. In some tropical countries, instead, it has been proved that the active involvment of local communities with their of traditional knowledge and agro-forestry activities act as a defence against illegal deforestation and biodiversity loss. An example can be represented by the Indigenous Reserve of Monochoa and the related chagras system, which is located in Colombia, one of the countries with a presented study case; other examples can be found in community forest management in Indonesia. In this regard, I do not completely agree with the second sentence of the conclusion section ("progress towards solving them has been meagre"), as there are different examples of projects that at local level contributed to climate change mitigation and biodiversity conservation, especially if carried out with the involvment of local communities. International programmes, such as the GIAHS Programme of the FAO, can represent an example of traditional knowledge valorization with positive effects on biodiversity conservation and on more sustainable agricultural systems.

Page 8, last paragraph - Are oyu reffering to the south-american country of Colombia? Is it Colombia, not Columbia. Please, check it throughout the manuscript.

Supplementary material. I am not sure that this part needs to be published as supplemetary materials. While I have found the Appendix (tab 3) really important (it is a pity that it is not included within the main text!), in my opinion the Supplementary material adds nothing particularly interesting (info and/or data) to the readers.