An interdisciplinary team of scientists is calling for environmental decisions to consider human rights and ecological evidence, emphasizing that biodiversity and human well-being are interconnected.
An interdisciplinary group of researchers is urging a fundamental change in how environmental decisions impacting biodiversity are made, emphasizing the need to incorporate human rights considerations. This call comes in a commentary published in the journal npj Ocean Sustainability, which stresses that human well-being is intrinsically linked to nature for food, climate regulation and cultural practices. Consequently, protecting nature should be viewed as a human rights issue.
Lead author Holly Niner, a global challenge research fellow at the University of Plymouth, highlights the importance of considering the full spectrum of human-nature interactions, particularly in areas like the deep ocean.
“There are significant parts of our planet – for example, the deep ocean – that we currently know very little about,” she said in a news release. “However, we know that these regions are critical for human well-being for global society. Uncertainty in understanding and lack of formalized, statistically certain evidence of the dependency of people to these regions should not be reason to exclude these connections in decision-making that pose a potential risk of harm.”
“If we are to protect the planet and human well-being, 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 center of decision-making,” she added.
The commentary, authored by researchers from the University of Plymouth and the University of Strathclyde and part of the One Ocean Hub, an international research program for sustainable development, calls for environmental decisions to be informed by scientific and ecological evidence, including the knowledge held by local communities.
The researchers argue that the current approach to environmental decision-making is hamstrung by a demand for quantified certainty, which often excludes precautionary measures.
Sian Rees, associate professor of social-ecological systems at the University of Plymouth and senior author of the study, underscores the necessity of evolving environmental decision-making frameworks.
“Biodiversity loss is not just about a quantified decline in habitats and species or a tradeable good in cost-benefit analysis,” she said in the news release. “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.”
The researchers point out significant portions of the Earth, such as the deep ocean, where our understanding remains limited. Yet, these regions are crucial for the health of the planet and human society. By integrating methods from ecosystem services research, which map out the ecological and spiritual connections between humans and the deep-sea, they argue that adequate evidence exists to adopt precautionary approaches to safeguard both biodiversity and human well-being.
The proposed shift could reshape global environmental policy by embedding ecological evidence and human rights within decision-making processes, ultimately fostering a more sustainable and equitable future for all.