Implement law, listen to the science: Environmental rule of law and science policy interfaces

Yesterday, I spoke at the 2022 Oslo (3rd) International Environmental Law Conference, on the transformative nature of environmental rule of law, and making a case for strengthening science-policy interfaces.

In the opening of the session, Prof. Ragnhild Hennum, Dean, Faculty of Law, University of Oslo, explained the stories behind the paintings in the Aula – the main hall where the plenary sessions were taking place. One painting that struck me was one on “History”.

A boy sits on a blue stone, listening keenly to the stories of the older man. Earlier in the day, I was sitting with Donald Kaniaru,?a pioneer in environmental law and diplomacy, listening to stories of the development of environmental law. In the conference I have had the pleasure of learning from the eminent panelists, as a “young boy” in environmental law.

I heard about stories from as far back as the 1970s, the creation of UNEP where I now work, the Stockholm Conference, and many developments to date. I heard about the environmental problems identified in the past, and the journey of environmental law. I heard about the Montevideo Programme, where a handful of delegates present in Oslo, were present and active. Many of these landmark events happened years before my birth. And at the conference, I was on the same panel with some. In years to come, I am sure I will be sharing a stage with those in the future generation.

I raised with the audience that at the conference we are discussing and providing insights on solutions to challenges, that will impact not only we who are here today, but those generations of the future. From the perspective of an early career professional, we are shaping the “History” of environmental law, a snapshot that future generations can look back at, and find as the turning points in environmental law. With this conference and the work of IUCN WCEL as threads in the fabric of a sustainable world.

Yet it also got me thinking, and questioning, why 50 years after the international community met at the first conference on environment, that we are today questioning whether law relating to the environment, is transformative. Are we still grappling the same challenges? I would say the broad brushstrokes are the same, but when one challenge is solved, others become more apparent. Christina said we are not here to talk only about the past, but to chart a way for the future.

What is the potential for law? What is the potential for science-policy interfaces? How can strengthening science-policy interfaces also support environmental rule of law, to deliver positive outcomes for the environment?

First, reinforced the enormity of the challenges: The triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity and nature loss, and pollution, are among the greatest challenges of our time. Climate change has widespread impacts on people and planet, with the most vulnerable people and systems disproportionately affected. Around 1 million species of plants and animals face extinction, with human actions threatening more species with global extinction in the past 50 years than ever before. Air pollution kills approximately 7 million people every year.

Environmental rule of law is crucial in addressing the triple planetary crisis of climate change, nature loss and pollution. It seeks to address the implementation gap between environmental laws’ requirements, principles, and guidelines and their application and enforcement. Science-policy interfaces are a fundamental pillar of environmental rule of law. Science-policy interfaces include exchanges and relations between scientists and other stakeholders in policy processes that allow for co-development and co-construction of knowledge for informed and enriched decision-making.

Evidence-based research provided to policymakers, through science-policy panels on climate change, biodiversity, and resources, contributes to strengthening of environmental policy and legal frameworks. The United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA), at its resumed fifth session emphasized the importance of science-policy interfaces and paved the way for establishing a science-policy panel on chemicals and wastes. UNEA also adopted a resolution towards intergovernmental negotiations for an international legally binding agreement on plastic pollution, including in the marine environment.

The concept of ‘environmental rule of law’ draws from the concept of ‘rule of law’ and applies it in an environmental context. Environmental rule of law as a concept offers that in addressing environmental issues, “law should be consistent with fundamental rights; law should be inclusively developed and fairly effectuated; and law should bring forth accountability not just on paper, but in practice—such that the law becomes operative through observance of, or compliance with, the law.”

Science policy interfaces have been defined as “institutional arrangements that reflect cognitive models and provide normative structures, rights, rules and procedures that define and enable the social practice of linking scientific and policy-making processes”. Science policy interfaces have also been defined as “social processes which encompass relations between scientists and other actors in the policy process, and which allow for exchanges, co-evolution, and joint construction of knowledge with the aim of enriching decision-making”.

Governments have over the years made great strides in tackling the triple planetary crisis, through strengthening environmental rule of law, and in establishing and taking action through science-policy interfaces. There has been an increase in the establishment of multistakeholder initiatives, to bridge the participation gap in science-policy interfaces and facilitate interactions between scientists, policymakers, legal experts, and practitioners in various fields, for certainty of goals, expectations, and outputs, as well as examining and addressing differing interests.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Panel on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the International Resource Panel (IRP), are examples of platforms where evidence-based research is provided to policymakers and through feedback loops contribute to the strengthening of policy frameworks. For strengthened environmental rule of law, legal and institutional frameworks that rely on the contribution of science-policy frameworks, in turn benefit from strengthening of these interfaces.

I provided three examples of how strengthening science-policy interfaces can contribute to strengthening environmental rule of law, which supports its effectiveness in tackling environmental problems. In this, a linear approach to science influencing policy and law may not be accurate in depicting the interaction between science, policy, and law. A dynamic approach which recognizes that law also influences science and policy, and where law, science, and policy are all impacted by other factors in economic and social realities, may be more appropriate.

First, the Vienna Convention for the protection of the ozone layer, and the Montreal protocol on substances that deplete the ozone layer. Scientists told the world that there is a hole in the ozone layer. Scientists challenged policy makers to take action. The Vienna Convention, Montreal protocol, and later the Kigali amendment, came in to address the challenge. Science influenced policy, law was put in place. Yet the challenge still persists. We’re now in the implementation stage.

Secondly, scientists told the world about climate change. Action including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement. The law is in place. We’re now in the implementation stage.

Thirdly, on plastics and plastic pollution. Scientists tell us we have plastic in our bodies. Research now contributes to discussions on plastic pollution. The time to act is now. To engage in the treaty negotiations for Member States. But there is also a role to play for stakeholders. For lawyers, professionals, academia, researchers, on innovative solutions: A question being: what is the role of stakeholders, such as businesses, in shaping international environmental lawmaking? How can law incorporate the interests of diverse stakeholders, in a flexible instrument, that delivers results in reducing plastic pollution?

Already, examples of legal instruments to address plastic pollution exist, influenced by science-policy discussions. In Rwanda, Kenya, and other countries, there are legal instruments to ban plastic bags. In other countries, these are in the form of economic measures, taxation, and others. Once the treaty is in place, we will be in the implementation stage. We will be looking for gaps. Once problem solved through law, another one to address. Implementation, being the main part of what environmental rule of law is about.

Science alone cannot catalyse necessary actions for people and nature. Law alone cannot catalyse necessary actions for people and nature. No State, government, individual, community, or people, can alone catalyse necessary actions for people and nature. Strengthening science-policy interfaces can lead to enhanced implementation, compliance, and enforcement of environmental law, through multistakeholder, regional, global, transformative action.

I was really glad to work on this with Marina Venancio , Chair of the IUCN World Commission on Environmental Law Early Career Specialist Group. Immense gratitude to Prof. Dr. Christina Voigt and Ayman Cherkaoui for the invitation, and Patricia Kameri-Mbote (Kameri-Mbote) for the support. I also spoke on a panel ?on the power of law in driving change in society, and was glad to share some insights together with? Sheila Abed Donald Kaniaru, Inger Johanne Sand?Geir Ulfstein?University of Oslo (UiO), Robin Merlier?and?Jojo Mehta. Photo here.