The role of evidence in biodiversity law-making

Law plays a key role in protecting and promoting biodiversity at the national and global level and cannot be based on rules-of-thumb or wishful thinking. Law-making procedures should be evidence-based, that is, should be informed by an empirical assessment of the likely consequences of proposed legal frameworks. The ex ante appraisal of proposals offers objective information that lawmakers can incorporate in the discussion to address ecological concerns. Furthermore, the ex post assessment of policies can provide legislators with valuable information on the actual effectiveness of legal instruments. Scientific knowledge should be put at the service of the law-making process. However, ‘evidence-based’ approaches face several difficulties. First, the concept of evidence is contentious. Different types of ‘evidence’ can enter the discussion and there are no clear rules on how evidence should be evaluated. The qualification of information as ‘evidence’ is not a neutral, objective judgement, but the result of a decision made by someone in a particular context. Second, law-makers may find it difficult to sort out the ‘best’ evidence from all the available information since scientists often disagree. Legislative bodies may also lack the necessary expertise to understand the complexity of the information before them. Finally, incorporating scientific evidence into law-making processes is challenging given the deep interconnection between law-making and politics. Quite ironically, there is little evidence of the impact of evidence in law-making processes. Legislators are often influenced by other factors besides scientific findings and have to balance competing interests. Over the past decade it has become de rigueur for governments and international organisations to underline the need for ‘evidence-based’ laws and regulations. Still, evidence-based approaches should not be seen as a magical potion. Scientific knowledge is rarely situated at the centre of legislative debates. Alternative expressions such as ‘evidence-informed’ or ‘evidence-influenced’ law-making seem more suitable. The role of evidence is to inform the legislative process rather than driving it. When the debate is based on evidence and data, the role of science in the law-making process is enhanced, making more space for science to play a meaningful role in the protection and promotion of biodiversity.