Scientists call for an update in environmental decision making that takes human rights into account

Researchers argue global decisions must be guided by understanding of the inseparable connection between humans and nature
Marine scientist Joanna Harris swimming with a reef manta ray in the Indian Ocean
Human wellbeing is connected to nature for food, climate regulation and culture, making the protection of nature a human rights matter.
Added to that, recent developments in international human rights law highlight that governments need to consider human-nature connections when making decisions that may affect the environment.
In a commentary published in npj Ocean Sustainability, an interdisciplinary group of researchers – including experts in ecosystem services, environmental governance, deep-sea ecology, and law – underscore that these developments should prompt a rethink of how any environmental decisions that hold the potential to impact biodiversity are made.
They argue this rethink should centre around assessments of foreseeable harm, and that any ability to foresee harms to human wellbeing is sufficient to prompt precautionary action to avert it.
Doing this would mark a significant evolution of current environmental decision-making which, they say, is presently “constrained by a perceived need for quantified certainty in impact assessment”.
Critically, the authors outline that human rights law shows that available evidence should be integrated into decision-making, even when considered uncertain.
Considering this, they have called for all environmental decisions globally to take account of key scientific and ecological evidence – including the knowledge and cultures held by local communities – and new ecosystem system service risk-based research methods that can provide an assessment of precaution, when they are making environmental decisions.
This, the researchers say, will ensure that the ecosystems vital for human wellbeing across the planet are appropriately accounted for in decision making.
The article was authored by researchers from the University of Plymouth and the University of Strathclyde, working as part of the One Ocean Hub – an international programme aiming to support fair and inclusive decision-making for a healthy ocean for people and planet.

There are significant parts of our planet – for example, the deep ocean – that we currently know very little about.

However, we know that these regions are critical for human wellbeing for global society. Uncertainty in understanding and lack of formalised, statistically certain evidence of the dependency of people to these regions should not be reason to exclude these connections in decisions-making that pose a potential risk of harm. If we are to protect the planet and human wellbeing, we need to consider the full picture and accept that biodiversity cannot and does not exist in a silo. This article makes the argument for addressing this and setting the critical connections between people and nature at the centre of decision-making.

Holly NinerHolly Niner
Global Challenge Research Fellow: Blue finance for nature-based solutions

Biodiversity loss is not just about a quantified decline in habitats and species, or a tradeable good in cost-benefit analysis.

If we are to truly change our approach to protecting it now and for future generations, we need to challenge the current context for all environmental decision-making. We can start to do that by ensuring biodiversity loss is considered a human rights issue, and that environmental decision-making needs to align with advances in international human rights law.

Sian ReesSian Rees
Associate Professor of Social-Ecological Systems

The challenges of environmental decision-making: the case of the deep ocean

They account for around 60% of Earth’s surface area, but large areas of the deep ocean remain completely unexplored. What is known about them, however, is that the habitats and biodiversity they support contributed to the health of the entire planet and global humanity.
Writing in the article, the researchers highlight how it is possible to broadly describe the ecological and spiritual connections between people and the deep-sea via methods developed through ecosystem services research.
Accordingly, the authors argue, sufficient evidence is available to assess foreseeable harm and to integrate these values, and precautionary approaches, into any decisions that pose a potential risk loss or degradation to biodiversity and human wellbeing.
Mat Upton Plymouth Pioneers. Deep sea. coral reef
  • The full study – Niner et al: Connecting ecosystem services research and human rights to revamp the application of the precautionary principle – is published in npj Ocean Sustainability, DOI: 10.1038/s44183-024-00072-8.

One Ocean Hub 

One Ocean Hub is a £20 million programme with more than 50 partners from across the globe that aims to support the sustainable management of the marine environment.
The Hub is helping to support the UK’s international commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), in particular SDG 14: Life Under Water which covers the conservation and sustainable use of the ocean.
One Ocean Hub
Close-up wave

Marine Institute

Man fishing in small boat above coral reef. 

Marine Conservation Research Group

Lyme Bay Emma Sheehan

applied Marine Ecosystems Research (aMER)