In many countries, complex environmental problems such as biodiversity decline are regulated at the national level by a disparate range of laws and nonstatutory policy instruments variously described by terms including plans, strategies, guidelines, statements of intent, and/or incentives. Such instruments are often grouped together by conservation policymakers and scientists under the umbrella term “policy.” However, from a legal perspective, there are critical differences between these so-called policy instruments. In this paper, we focus on what we consider to be the critical difference: whether a policy instrument is binding, and therefore whether an administrative decision (e.g., about a development proposal) can be legally challenged due to noncompliance with that policy instrument. Drawing from international examples, the aim of this paper is to give conservation policymakers and scientists the guidance needed to critically differentiate between laws and nonstatutory policy, assess current or proposed policies, and determine whether a nonstatutory instrument gives rise to binding obligations, thus allowing for decisions to be challenged before a court. In doing so, we encourage conservation scientists, policymakers, activists, and practitioners to reflect critically on what is possible and not possible when nonstatutory “policy” instruments are designed and implemented.

中文翻译：

---

并非所有的保护“政策”都是平等的：政策何时会产生具有法律约束力的义务？


在许多国家，生物多样性退化等复杂的环境问题在国家层面受到各种法律和非法定政策工具的监管，这些法律和非法定政策工具由计划、战略、准则、意向声明和/或激励措施等术语进行各种描述。此类工具通常由保护政策制定者和科学家归为“政策”总称。然而，从法律角度来看，这些所谓的政策工具之间存在重大差异。在本文中，我们关注我们认为的关键差异：政策工具是否具有约束力，以及行政决定（例如，关于发展提案）是否可以因不遵守该政策工具而受到法律质疑。本文借鉴国际示例，旨在为保护政策制定者和科学家提供关键区分法律和非法定政策所需的指导，评估当前或拟议的政策，并确定非法定文书是否产生具有约束力的义务，从而允许在法院对决定提出质疑。在此过程中，我们鼓励保护科学家、政策制定者、活动家和从业者批判性地反思在设计和实施非法定“政策”工具时什么是可能的，什么是不可能的。