IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/policy/v47y2014i2p141-160.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Katharina Rietig

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. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Suggested Citation

  • Katharina Rietig, 2014. "‘Neutral’ experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 47(2), pages 141-160, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:2:p:141-160
    DOI: 10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11077-013-9188-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars H. Gulbrandsen, 2008. "The Role of Science in Environmental Governance: Competing Knowledge Producers in Swedish and Norwegian Forestry," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 8(2), pages 99-122, May.
    2. Lars H. Gulbrandsen & Steinar Andresen, 2004. "NGO Influence in the Implementation of the Kyoto Protocol: Compliance, Flexibility Mechanisms, and Sinks," Global Environmental Politics, MIT Press, vol. 4(4), pages 54-75, November.
    3. Christopher Weible & Tanya Heikkila & Peter deLeon & Paul Sabatier, 2012. "Understanding and influencing the policy process," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 1-21, March.
    4. Haas, Peter M., 1992. "Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination," International Organization, Cambridge University Press, vol. 46(1), pages 1-35, January.
    5. Mary Lawhon, 2012. "Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 69-86, March.
    6. Magnus Gulbrandsen, 2011. "Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(3), pages 215-230, September.
    7. Lihi Lahat, 2011. "How can leaders’ perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 44(2), pages 135-155, June.
    8. Ross Beveridge, 2012. "Consultants, depoliticization and arena-shifting in the policy process: privatizing water in Berlin," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(1), pages 47-68, March.
    9. Kelly Levin & Benjamin Cashore & Steven Bernstein & Graeme Auld, 2012. "Overcoming the tragedy of super wicked problems: constraining our future selves to ameliorate global climate change," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 45(2), pages 123-152, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. repec:sae:envval:v:25:y:2016:i:6:p:687-705 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Linda Mederake & Barbara Saerbeck & Alexandra Goritz & Helge Jörgens & Mareike Well & Nina Kolleck, 2022. "Cultivated ties and strategic communication: do international environmental secretariats tailor information to increase their bureaucratic reputation?," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 481-506, September.
    3. Katharina Rietig, 2014. "Reinforcement of multilevel governance dynamics: creating momentum for increasing ambitions in international climate negotiations," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 371-389, November.
    4. Ina Tessnow-von Wysocki & Alice B. M. Vadrot, 2024. "Pathways of scientific input into intergovernmental negotiations: a new agreement on marine biodiversity," International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 325-348, September.
    5. Garrett Ward Richards, 2019. "The Science–Policy Relationship Hierarchy (SPRHi) model of co-production: how climate science organizations have influenced the policy process in Canadian case studies," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 67-95, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jan Beyers & Marcel Hanegraaff, 2017. "Balancing friends and foes: Explaining advocacy styles at global diplomatic conferences," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 461-484, September.
    2. Heather Millar, 2020. "Problem Uncertainty, Institutional Insularity, and Modes of Learning in Canadian Provincial Hydraulic Fracturing Regulation," Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization, vol. 37(6), pages 765-796, November.
    3. Adam Hannah & Erik Baekkeskov, 2020. "The promises and pitfalls of polysemic ideas: ‘One Health’ and antimicrobial resistance policy in Australia and the UK," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(3), pages 437-452, September.
    4. Katharina Rietig, 2011. "The influence of academics as insidernongovernmental actors in the Post-Kyoto Protocol Climate Change Negotiations: a matter of timing, network and policyentrepreneurial capabilities," GRI Working Papers 58, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    5. Tobias Böhmelt, 2013. "A closer look at the information provision rationale: Civil society participation in states’ delegations at the UNFCCC," The Review of International Organizations, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 55-80, March.
    6. Leonore Haelg & Sebastian Sewerin & Tobias S. Schmidt, 2020. "The role of actors in the policy design process: introducing design coalitions to explain policy output," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 53(2), pages 309-347, June.
    7. Katharina Rietig, 2011. "Public pressure versus lobbying � how do Environmental NGOs matter most in climate negotiations?," GRI Working Papers 70, Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
    8. Claude Paraponaris, 2017. "Plateformes numériques, conception ouverte et emploi," Post-Print halshs-01614430, HAL.
    9. Andrew B. Whitford & Derrick Anderson, 2021. "Governance landscapes for emerging technologies: The case of cryptocurrencies," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 1053-1070, October.
    10. Eichengreen, Barry & Ghironi, Fabio, 1997. "European Monetary Unification and International Monetary Cooperation," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt10d518tg, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    11. Jeanie Bukowski, 2017. "A “new water culture†on the Iberian Peninsula? Evaluating epistemic community impact on water resources management policy," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 35(2), pages 239-264, March.
    12. Natalie Slawinski & Jonatan Pinkse & Timo Busch & Subhabrata Bobby Banerjeed, 2014. "The role of short-termism and uncertainty in organizational inaction on climate change: multilevel framework," Working Papers hal-00961226, HAL.
    13. Mateos-Garcia, Juan & Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2008. "The institutions of open source software: Examining the Debian community," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 333-344, December.
    14. Catherine Long, 2017. "Delegated Service Authority: Institutional Evolution of PEPFAR Health-Based Program Implementing Units in Tanzania," Global Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 8(3), pages 303-312, September.
    15. Federico Maria Ferrara & Jörg S Haas & Andrew Peterson & Thomas Sattler, 2022. "Exports vs. Investment: How Public Discourse Shapes Support for External Imbalances," Post-Print hal-02569351, HAL.
    16. Sandberg, Kristin Ingstad & Andresen, Steinar & Bjune, Gunnar, 2010. "A new approach to global health institutions? A case study of new vaccine introduction and the formation of the GAVI Alliance," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 71(7), pages 1349-1356, October.
    17. May-Britt Stumbaum, 2015. "The diffusion of norms in security-related fields: views from China, India and the EU," Asia Europe Journal, Springer, vol. 13(3), pages 331-347, September.
    18. Ruth Mayne & Duncan Green & Irene Guijt & Martin Walsh & Richard English & Paul Cairney, 2018. "Using evidence to influence policy: Oxfam’s experience," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Sosay, Gül & Zenginobuz, Unal, 2005. "Independent regulatory agencies in emerging economies," MPRA Paper 380, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Kai Greenlees & Randolph Cornelius, 2021. "The promise of panarchy in managed retreat: converging psychological perspectives and complex adaptive systems theory," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 11(3), pages 503-510, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:47:y:2014:i:2:p:141-160. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.