Enacting and developing international environmental law - Introduction to International Environmental Law - page 50

The scientists who contribute to the IPCC assessments often complain that the
wording of their summary reports is compromised by international negotia-
tors, and in the process loses some of its objectivity. Governments focus on
negotiating the tone and emphasis, with some governments even trying to
water down the agreed scientifi c consensus by softening the way it is expressed
when preparing the summaries for decision-makers. The summary reports are
of paramount importance, because the more detailed scientifi c assessments are
highly technical and beyond the comprehension of most non-experts.
Since 2007, the international community developed the idea of establish-
ing a scientifi c panel to assess the third essential global environmental
problem, the loss of biodiversity. The Intergovernmental Science-Policy
Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) 6 fi nally commenced
in April 2012.
The panel addresses marine and inland water ecosystems and terrestrial
ecosystems. It observes the changes in them, especially from the perspective of
human well-being. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, published in
2005, 7 initiated a process intended to create a permanent mechanism for
bringing science and politics together in relation to biodiversity issues. The
model for the IPBES is the IPCC and its mode of functioning.
Increasingly, ways of expanding scientifi c infl uence in decision-making are
being explored. One good way of doing this is for research to be conducted
in close collaboration with those who are actually going to be affected. The
use of environmental impact assessments (EIAs), for example, has shown that
it is benefi cial to establish the EIA procedure for a large planned factory in a
way that would enable the people living in the affected area to actively
contribute to decision-making (what should be examined, by whom and
how). This increases their confi dence in the scientifi c data and in the entire
decision-making process.
The gradual evolution of the principle of precaution has been important in
making sure that scientifi c evidence is taken into account in decision-making,
even before it can prove anything close to certainty. According to this prin-
ciple, if the consequences of human action are likely to be severe or irrevers-
ible, action must be taken even before scientifi c certainty has been proven.
An even more effective way of involving the public is to allow residents to
compile and submit data directly. For example, the indigenous peoples of the
Arctic participated in the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA).
Indigenous peoples, especially those who maintain traditional indigenous life-
styles, spend a great deal of their lives observing the environment; there is no
other way to hunt successfully or manage animal or fi sh stocks. Constant
observation has given them unique information about the changes in the
Arctic over the course of their lifetime. Having actively participated in ACIA
as researchers alongside Western scientists, the fi nal research report also
contained a section discussing the impact of climate change on the Arctic
indigenous peoples both now and in future.