Enacting and developing international environmental law - Introduction to International Environmental Law - page 49

an object of regulation that we could perceive straightforwardly as being, for
example, within the boundaries of a state, modern science has complicated this
simplistic approach: water system areas usually consist of an intricate network
of surface and ground waters, a drainage area that generally spreads over several
states' territories, and waters that fl ow on to the seas. In this way, our increased
scientifi c knowledge has turned a problem that was once considered national
into a complex international one.
Although science plays a very central role in defi ning environmental
problems and providing research data about their evolution, we should
remember that international environmental politics is still inherently politi-
cal: a recommendation by a scientifi c institution alone would seldom defi ne
how international environmental regimes react to environmental problems.
International environmental regimes have for various reasons selected differ-
ent methods of incorporating science into their regimes. There is increasing
recognition that science cannot provide decision-makers with fully objective
and complete information. The scientifi c approach is still the best way to
fi nd out how an environmental problem originates, how it evolves and how
it interacts with other environmental problems, but there will very often be
gaps in the knowledge it provides owing to incomplete data or incomplete
or unproven theories regarding, inter alia , causation of complex, intertwined
phenomena.
The key scientifi c syntheses, such as, for example, those produced by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 4 do not report results
from a single research project. Instead, a huge number of scientists compile the
essential trends from a vast number of peer-reviewed, high-quality research
results: that is, they compile the refl ected general image of the change. As
politicians and diplomats are continually required to navigate their way
through a deluge of information, there is a tendency to popularize scientifi c
assessments for them in brief, simplifi ed reports translated into standard
language. This is how politicians and the general public are able to observe the
progress of an environmental problem. 5
In the development of international environmental regulation, the most
common response to an aggravating environmental problem is to establish a
task force whose aim is to keep key decision-makers updated about the progress
of the environmental problem. For example, the ozone regime created a scien-
tifi c assessment system in the Montreal Protocol and the assessment panels have
fairly independently managed to produce scientifi c information about the
progress of ozone depletion so that the parties have been able to tighten and
accelerate the schedules to reduce CFC emissions.
The introduction of new scientifi c research into the climate regime takes
place more slowly, because the IPCC is not part of the climate regime. The
Subsidiary Body for Scientifi c and Technological Advice (SBSTA) fi lters the
IPCC's scientifi c assessments into the climate regime. The IPCC assessments -
and, more importantly, the summaries that are produced from them for
political decision-makers - are also subject to intergovernmental political play.