‘Neutral-experts? How input of scientific expertise matters in international environmental negotiations
详细信息    查看全文
  • 作者：Katharina Rietig (1)
  • 关键词：Experts ; International negotiations ; Climate change ; Research utilisation ; Influence ; Agency ; Policy entrepreneurs
  • 刊名：Policy Sciences
  • 出版年：2014
  • 出版时间：June 2014
  • 年：2014
  • 卷：47
  • 期：2
  • 页码：141-160
  • 全文大小：
  • 参考文献：1. Adams, D. (2004). Usable knowledge in public policy. / Australian Journal of Public Administration, / 63(1), 29-2. CrossRef
    2. Andresen, S. (2013). International Regime Effectiveness. In R. Falkner (Ed.), / The handbook of global climate and environment policy, chapter 18 (pp. 304-20). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. CrossRef
    3. Auer, M. (1998). Colleagues or combatants? Experts as environmental diplomats. / International Negotiation, / 3(2), 267-87. CrossRef
    4. Bernstein, S., & Cashore, B. (2012). Complex global governance and domestic policies: Four pathways of influence. / International Affairs, / 88(3), 585-04. CrossRef
    5. Betsill, M., & Corell, E. (2008). / NGO diplomacy: The influence of nongovernmental organizations in international environment negotiations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    6. Beveridge, R. (2012). Consultants, depoliticization and area-shifting in the policy-process: Privatizing water in Berlin. / Policy Sciences, / 45(1), 47-8. CrossRef
    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, 297-09. CrossRef
    8. Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. / Global Governance, / 8, 195-19.
    9. Biermann, F. (2012). Curtain down and nothing settled. / Earth System Governance Working Paper, / 26, 1-4.
    10. Biermann, F., Pattberg, P., & Zelli, F. (2010). / Global climate governance beyond 2012: Architecture, agency and adaptation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    11. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994a). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 1. / Global Environmental Change, / 4(2), 140-59. CrossRef
    12. Boehmer-Christiansen, S. (1994b). Global climate protection policy—the limits of scientific advice: Part 2. / Global Environmental Change, / 4(3), 185-00. CrossRef
    13. Bomberg, E. (2007). Policy learning in an enlarged European Union: Environmental NGOs and new policy instruments. / Journal of European Public Policy, / 14(2), 248-68. CrossRef
    14. Cohen, S. (2006). / Understanding environmental policy. New York: Columbia University Press.
    15. Creswell, J. (2009). / Research design. Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles: Sage Publications.
    16. Depledge, J. (2005). / The organization of global negotiations. Constructing the climate change regime. London: Earthscan.
    17. ENB. (2009a). Summary of the Barcelona climate change talks: 2- 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: 7-9 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-1 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-1 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), 65-0. CrossRef
    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), 1360-380. CrossRef
    24. Gulbrandsen, L. (2008). The role of science in environmental governance: Competing knowledge producers in Swedish and Norwegian forestry. / Global Environmental Politics, / 8(2), 99-22.
    25. Gulbrandsen, M. (2011). Research institutes as hybrid organizations: central challenges to their legitimacy. / Policy Sciences, / 44(3), 215-30. CrossRef
    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), 54-5. CrossRef
    27. Haas, P. M. (1990). / Saving the mediterranean: The politics of international environmental protection. New York: Columbia University Press.
    28. Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. / International Organization, / 46(1), 1-5. CrossRef
    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), 569-92. CrossRef
    30. IPCC. (2007). / Climate change 2007: Synthesis report. Valencia: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
    31. Jasanoff, S. (1990). / The fifth branch. Science advisers as policymakers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
    32. Jasanoff, S. (2012). Testing Time for Climate Science. / Science, / 328, 695-96. CrossRef
    33. King, G., Keohane, R. O., & Verba, S. (1994). / Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    34. Kingdon, J. (1984). / Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
    35. Kjellen, B. (2007). / A new diplomacy for sustainable development: The challenge of global change. London: Routledge.
    36. Lahat, L. (2011). How can leaders-perceptions guide policy analysis in an era of governance? / Policy Sciences, / 44, 135-55. CrossRef
    37. Lawhon, M. (2012). Contesting power, trust and legitimacy in the South African e-waste transition. / Policy Sciences, / 45(1), 69-6. CrossRef
    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, 123-52. CrossRef
    39. Mason, M. (2005). / The new accountability: Environmental responsibility across borders. London: Earthscan.
    40. Miles, E., Underdal, A., & Andresen, S. (2002). / International regime effectiveness: Confronting theory with evidence. Cambridge: MIT Press.
    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. 307-38). Cambridge: MIT Press.
    42. Montpetit, E. (2011). Scientific credibility, disagreement, and error costs in 17 biotechnology policy subsystems. / Policy Studies Journal, / 39(3), 513-33. CrossRef
    43. Ostrom, E. (1990). / Governing the commons: The evolution of institutions for collective action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
    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, 394-01. CrossRef
    45. Ozawa, C. P. (1991). / Recasting science: Consensual procedures in public policy making. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
    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), 147-75.
    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, 309-21. CrossRef
    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.
    49. Stern, N. (2006). / Stern review on the economics of climate change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    50. Stone, D. (2000). Non-governmental policy transfer: the strategies of independent policy institutes. / Governance, / 13(1), 45-2. CrossRef
    51. Thompson, A. (2010). Rational design in motion: uncertainty and flexibility in the global climate regime. / European Journal of International Relations, / 16(2), 269-96. CrossRef
    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.
    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.
    56. UNFCCC. (2011a). / Report of COP- / 17. Proceedings. / Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.
    57. UNFCCC. (2011b). / Report of COP- / 17. Action taken by COP- / 17. / Decision FCCC/CP/2011/9/Add.1 New York: United Nations.
    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, 445-77. CrossRef
    60. Weible, C. M. (2008). Expert-based information and policy subsystems: A review and synthesis. / Policy Studies Journal, / 36(4), 615-35. CrossRef
    61. Weible, C. M., Heikkila, T., deLeon, P., & Sabatier, P. A. (2012). Understanding the policy process. / Policy Sciences, / 45(1), 1-1. CrossRef
    62. Weible, C., & Sabatier, P. A. (2005). Comparing policy networks: marine protected areas in California. / Policy Studies Journal, / 2, 181-04. CrossRef
    63. Weible, C. M., Sabatier, P., & McQueen, K. (2009). Themes and variations: Taking stock of the advocacy coalition framework. / Policy Studies Journal, / 37(1), 121-40. CrossRef
    64. Weiss, C. (1977). Research for policy’s sake: The enlightenment function of social research. / Policy Analysis, / 3, 531-45.
    65. Weiss, C. (1979). The many meanings of research utilization. / Public Administration Review, / 39(5), 426-31. CrossRef
    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.
    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.
  • 作者单位：Katharina Rietig (1)

    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
  • ISSN：1573-0891
文摘
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.

© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号

地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083

电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700