Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Explore related subjects

Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.

Notes

  1. These experts are for example professors in country delegations from Boston University (Pakistan), Columbia University (Papua New Guinea), Greifswald University (Belarus), University of Lisbon/University of Southampton (European Community), Lund University (Netherlands), or from universities in the countries they represent, UNFCCC (2010a, b).

  2. The majority of the civil servants interviewed mention or confirm this view.

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

  • Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 63(1), 29–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, M. (1998). Colleagues or combatants? Experts as environmental diplomats. International Negotiation, 3(2), 267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. International Affairs, 88(3), 585–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environment negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beveridge, R. (2012). Consultants, depoliticization and area-shifting in the policy-process: Privatizing water in Berlin. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 47–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance, 8, 195–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2012). Curtain down and nothing settled. Earth System Governance Working Paper, 26, 1–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (2010). Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 1. Global Environmental Change, 4(2), 140–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 2. Global Environmental Change, 4(3), 185–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. (2006). Understanding environmental policy. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Creswell, J. (2009). Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Depledge, J. (2005). The organization of global negotiations. Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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/.

  • 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/.

  • 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/.

  • Everett, S. (2003). The policy cycle: Democratic process or rational paradigm revisited? Australian Journal of Public Administration, 62(2), 65–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • GCS. (2013). Global climate scam. Cited July 2013. Available from http://www.globalclimatescam.com/.

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. Policy Sciences, 44(3), 215–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1990). Saving the mediterranean: The politics of international environmental protection. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC. (2007). Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Valencia: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1990). The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2012). Testing Time for Climate Science. Science, 328, 695–696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kingdon, J. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjellen, B. (2007). A new diplomacy for sustainable development: The challenge of global change. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahat, L. (2011). How can leaders’ perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance? Policy Sciences, 44, 135–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawhon, M. (2012). Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mason, M. (2005). The new accountability: Environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, E., Underdal, A., & Andresen, S. (2002). International regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Montpetit, E. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 513–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ostrom, E. (1990). Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ozawa, C. P. (1991). Recasting science: Consensual procedures in public policy making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • Stern, N. (2006). Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: the strategies of independent policy institutes. Governance, 13(1), 45–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, A. (2010). Rational design in motion: uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. European Journal of International Relations, 16(2), 269–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

  • UNFCCC. (2010c). Cancun agreements. Decision FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1. New York: United Nations.

  • UNFCCC. (2011a). Report of COP-17. Proceedings. Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.

  • UNFCCC. (2011b). Report of COP-17. Action taken by COP-17. Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.

  • 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.

  • Van Kerkhoof, L., & Lebel, L. (2006). Linking knowledge and action for sustainable development. Annual Review of Environmental Resources, 31, 445–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. Policy Studies Journal, 36(4), 615–635.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. A. (2012). Understanding the policy process. Policy Sciences, 45(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weible, C., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in California. Policy Studies Journal, 2, 181–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. Policy Analysis, 3, 531–545.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. Public Administration Review, 39(5), 426–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yamin, F., & Rambharos, M. (2011). The Cancun Agreements and the Way Forward. Stakeholders Dialogue and Conclusion. International Dialogue on Mitigation. Bonn: UNFCCC. June 2011.

  • 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.

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Michael Mason, Richard Perkins, Toddi Steelman and the four anonymous Policy Sciences reviewers for their helpful feedback on earlier versions of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Geography and Environment, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment, ESRC Centre for Climate Change Economics and Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London, WC2A 2AE, UK

    Katharina Rietig

Authors
  1. Katharina Rietig
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Katharina Rietig.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rietig, K. ‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations. Policy Sci 47, 141–160 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation