The Best Scientific Data for the Establishment of Zonally Linked Management Instruments: International Legal Characteristics

The use of the criterion «best available scientific data» when establishing zonally linked management tools is a reflection of the common practice of their formation. The widespread use of this criterion in numerous regulatory acts and guidance documents is accompanied only by prescriptions for improving the quality, reliability and accessibility of scientific information, without its legal content consolidation. The purpose of the study is to identify the normative content of the criterion «the best available scientific data».

The formation of the criterion the «best scientific data available» is associated with the strengthening of environmental cooperation between states and is a reflection of the precautionary principle. When scientific evidence is insufficient and there is a risk of harm, it is necessary to act in accordance with the due care obligation and precautionary requirements.

The practice of applying the criterion under study allows us to distinguish its three essential elements: the best nature of data, the scientific nature of data and the availability (availability) of data. The best nature of data is disclosed by the national courts through a number of features: completeness of the information, its proper nature, reliability, taking into account and evaluation of various scientific data. The presence of «minor inaccuracies» does not indicate that the data are not the best. The availability of data implies that authorities should make decisions based on scientific data received by them or presented by the scientific community at the time of decision-making. The best «available» data does not mean the best «possible» data. The authorities are not obliged to produce new scientific data. The scientific nature of data implies the use of appropriate, objective, impartial, transparent, final, interpretable data obtained using appropriate research methods, reflecting any inaccuracies and risks of their use, as well as having passed an independent expert assessment.

International and national judicial authorities avoid defining scientific data and consider issues related to the assessment of scientific nature of information through the prism of scientific research requirements.

1. Bekyashev DK, Bekyashev KA. Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries and the Possibility of its Application in the Russian Federation. Rybnoe kkhozyaystvo [The Fisheries Journal]. 2009;4:57-62. (In Russ.).

2. Bekyashev DK. International Legal Problems of Fisheries Management. A monograph. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2017. (In Russ.).

3. Bekyashev DK. The International Legal Principle of the Precautionary Approach in Fisheries Management. Evraziyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Eurasian Law Journal]. 2016;2(93):44-50. (In Russ.).

4. Bekyashev KA, Pekarsky AN. The International Court of Justice of the United Nations Banned Commercial Whaling in Antarctic Waters in Japan under the Guise of Scientific Research. Rybnoe kkhozyaystvo [The Fisheries Journal]. 2016;2:44-49. (In Russ.).

5. Brandon TO. Fearful Asymmetry: How the Absence of Public Participation in Section 7 of the ESA Can Make the «Best Available Science» Unavailable for Judicial Review. Harvard Environmental Law Review. 2015;39:312-369.

6. Campañá NG. To Achieve Biodiversity Goals, the New Forest Service Planning Rule Needs Effective Mandates for Best Available Science and Adaptive Management. Ecology Law Quarterly. 2011;38:241-291.

7. Cook K. Judging «Best Available Science»: Emerging Issues and the Role of Experts. Journal of International Dispute Settlement. 2018;9:388-400.

8. Dudley N. Guidelines for Applying Protected Area Management Categories. IUCN, International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources; 2008.

9. Improving the Use of the Best Scientific Information Available Standard in Fisheries Management. National Research Council; 2004. Available from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/11045/chapter/1 [Accessed 2023 May 20].

10. Joly JR, Reynolds J, Robards M. Recognizing When the «Best Scientific Data Available» Isn’t. Stanford Environmental Law Journal. 2010;29(2):247-282.

11. Kolodkin AL, Gutsulyak VN, Bobrova YuV. The World Ocean. The International Legal Regime. Main Problems. Moscow: Statut Publ.; 2007. (In Russ.).

12. Kuhn E. Science and Deference: the «Best Available Science» Mandate is a Fiction in the Ninth Circuit. New-York University Environmental Law Journal. 2016. Available from: https://www.nyuelj.org/2016/10/science-and-difference-the-best-available-science-mandate-is-a-fiction-in-the-ninth-circuit [Accessed 2023 May 20].

13. Nandan SN, Rosenne S, Grandy NR. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary. Vol. II. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1993.

14. Nandan SN, Rosenne S, Grandy NR. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982. A Commentary. Vol. III. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1995.

15. Pinto-Bazurco JF. The Precautionary Principle. Still Only One Earth: Lessons from 50 years of UN Sustainable Development Policy. Brief 4. 1–8. Available from: https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2020-10/still-one-earth-precautionary-principle.pdf [Accessed 2023 May 20].

16. Sands Ph. Principles of International Environmental Law. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2003.

17. Sokolova NA. The Development of the Principles of International Environmental Law and Problems of their Implementation: The Case of Legislation of the Russian Federation. Cand. Diss. (Law). Moscow; 1998. (In Russ.).

18. Teymurov ES. Marine Protected Areas and Other Zonally Linked Management Tools: International Legal Issues. Lex russica. 2021;74(7):95-110. (In Russ.).