Policy Sciences

, Volume 47, Issue 2, pp 141–160 | Cite as

‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations

Article

Abstract

This contribution analyses under what conditions expert input is most likely to be regarded by government representatives as useful and how government representatives use input provided by experts. It widens the analytical lens examining multilateral negotiations within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) between 2009 and 2011. The findings confirm the importance of deep knowledge, long-term involvement in the policy subsystem and networks. This research illustrates the importance of policy-entrepreneurial strategies such as proactively approaching government representatives and volunteering knowledge. Joining government delegations can increase expert input as they may gain access to the negotiation text. It is crucial to provide input early on in the negotiation cycle before the national negotiation position is decided. Scientific consensus on climate change facilitated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) resulted in a convergence of the actor’s beliefs towards understanding climate mitigation and adaptation as normative imperative. Actors, however, interpret expert input based on the consensual IPCC findings differently depending on their conflicting political objectives. Thus, instrumental and political use of expert input by the interest groups overlaps in the UNFCCC.

Keywords

Experts International negotiations Climate change Research utilisation Influence Agency Policy entrepreneurs 

Abbreviations

AOSIS

Alliance of Small Island States

COP

Conference of the Parties

EU

European Union

IPCC

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

LDC

Least Developed Country

MP

Member of Parliament

NGO

Non-governmental Organisation

UNFCCC

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

References

  1. Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 29–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andresen, S. (2013). International Regime Effectiveness. In R. Falkner (Ed.), The handbook of global climate and environment policy, chapter 18 (pp. 304–320). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Auer, M. (1998). Colleagues or combatants? Experts as environmental diplomats. International Negotiation, 3(2), 267–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environment negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Beveridge, R. (2012). Consultants, depoliticization and area-shifting in the policy-process: Privatizing water in Berlin. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 47–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Biermann, F. (2001). Big science, small impacts—in the South? The influence of global environmental assessments on expert communities in India. Global Environmental Change, 11, 297–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance, 8, 195–219.Google Scholar
  9. Biermann, F. (2012). Curtain down and nothing settled. Earth System Governance Working Paper, 26, 1–24.Google Scholar
  10. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (2010). Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 4(2), 140–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4(3), 185–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bomberg, E. (2007). Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: Environmental NGOs and new policy instruments. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(2), 248–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cohen, S. (2006). Understanding environmental policy. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Creswell, J. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  16. Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of global negotiations. Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  17. ENB. (2009a). Summary of the Barcelona climate change talks: 2–9 November 2011. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, IISD Reporting Services, 12(447). Cited July 2012. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/download/pdf/enb12447e.pdf.
  18. ENB. (2009b). Summary of the Copenhagen climate change conference: 7–19 December 2011. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, IISD Reporting Services, 12(459). Cited July 2012. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop15/.
  19. ENB. (2010). Summary of the Cancun climate change conference: 29 November–11 December 2011. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, IISD Reporting Services, 12(498). Cited July 2012. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop16/.
  20. ENB. (2011). Summary of the Durban climate change conference: 28 November–11 December 2011. Earth Negotiations Bulletin, IISD Reporting Services, 12(534). Cited July 2012. Available from http://www.iisd.ca/climate/cop17/.
  21. Everett, S. (2003). The policy cycle: Democratic process or rational paradigm revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), 65–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. GCS. (2013). Global climate scam. Cited July 2013. Available from http://www.globalclimatescam.com/.
  23. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gulbrandsen, L. (2008). The role of science in environmental governance: Competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. Global Environmental Politics, 8(2), 99–122.Google Scholar
  25. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gulbrandsen, L., & Andresen, S. (2004). NGO influence in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, flexibility mechanisms, and sinks. Global Environmental Politics, 4(4), 54–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Haas, P. M. (1990). Saving the mediterranean: The politics of international environmental protection. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Haas, P. M. (2004). When does power listen to truth? A constructivist approach to the policy process. Journal of European Public Policy, 11(4), 569–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Valencia: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Google Scholar
  31. Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Jasanoff, S. (2012). Testing Time for Climate Science. Science, 328, 695–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  35. Kjellen, B. (2007). A new diplomacy for sustainable development: The challenge of global change. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  36. Lahat, L. (2011). How can leaders’ perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance? Policy Sciences, 44, 135–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lawhon, M. (2012). Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Levin, K., Cashore, B., Bernstein, S., & Auld, G. (2012). Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change. Policy Sciences, 45, 123–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mason, M. (2005). The new accountability: Environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan.Google Scholar
  40. Miles, E., Underdal, A., & Andresen, S. (2002). International regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  41. Mitchell, R., Clark, W. C., & Cash, W. (2006). Information and influence. In R. Mitchell, W. C. Clark, W. Cash, & N. Dickinson (Eds.), Global environmental assessments: Information and influence (pp. 307–338). Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  42. Montpetit, E. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 513–533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Owens, S. (2010). Learning across levels of governance: expert advice and the adoption of carbon dioxide emission reduction targets in the UK. Global Environmental Change, 20, 394–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ozawa, C. P. (1991). Recasting science: Consensual procedures in public policy making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  46. Roberts, N., & King, P. (1991). Policy entrepreneurs: Their activity structure and function in the policy process. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 1(2), 147–175.Google Scholar
  47. Sharman, A., & Holmes, J. (2010). Evidence-based policy or policy-based evidence gathering? Biofuels, the EU and the 10% Target. Environmental Policy and Governance, 20, 309–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Skodvin, T. (2000). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In S. Andresen, T. Skodvin, A. Underdal & J. Wettestad (Eds.), Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Between integrity and involvement. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: the strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance, 13(1), 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Thompson, A. (2010). Rational design in motion: uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. European Journal of International Relations, 16(2), 269–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Underdal, A. (2000). Science and Politics: the anatomy of an uneasy partnership. In S. Andresen, T. Skodvin, A. Underdal & J. Wettestad (Eds.), Science and politics in international environmental regimes. Between integrity and involvement. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  53. UNFCCC. (2010a). Conference of the parties-15. List of participants. Part 1. Cited October 2012. Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/misc01p01.pdf.
  54. UNFCCC. (2010b). Conference of the parties-15. List of participants. Part 2. Cited October 2012. Available from http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/misc01p02.pdf.
  55. UNFCCC. (2010c). Cancun agreements. Decision FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  56. UNFCCC. (2011a). Report of COP-17. Proceedings. Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  57. UNFCCC. (2011b). Report of COP-17. Action taken by COP-17. Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.Google Scholar
  58. UNFCCC. (2011c). COP-17 side events and exhibits. Cited October 2012. Available from http://regserver.unfccc.int/seors/reports/archive.html?session_id=COP17/CMP7.
  59. Van Kerkhoof, L., & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 31, 445–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. A. (2012). Understanding the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weible, C., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 181–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. Policy Studies Journal, 37(1), 121–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.Google Scholar
  65. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yamin, F., & Rambharos, M. (2011). The Cancun Agreements and the Way Forward. Stakeholders Dialogue and Conclusion. International Dialogue on Mitigation. Bonn: UNFCCC. June 2011.Google Scholar
  67. Young, J., & Mendizabal, E. (2009). Helping researchers become policy entrepreneurs. How to develop engagement strategies for evidence-based policy-making. ODI Briefing Paper 53. London: Overseas Development Institute.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environment, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and PolicyLondon School of Economics and Political ScienceLondonUK

Personalised recommendations