The Role of Expertise in International Environmental Policymaking: The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Climate Conference

(1)

1

The Role of Expertise in International Environmental

Policymaking:

The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

and the 2015 Paris Climate Conference

Mariann Tóth s1563467

Public Administration

International and European Governance Dr. Johan Christensen

Leiden University 10/01/2020

(2)

2

List of Abbreviations

AR5 Fifth Assessment Report

COP 21 21st Conference of the Parties

GHG Greenhouse gas

INDC Intended Nationally Determined Contribution IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

PA Paris Agreement

SBSTA Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice

SED Structured Expert Dialogue

SIDS Small Island Developing States

SPM Summary for Policy Makers

UNDP United Nations Development Program

UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

WG I Working Group I

WG II Working Group II

WG III Working Group III

WHO World Health Organization

WMO World Meteorological Organization

(5)

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Human induced climate change

The issue of human induced climate change first gained importance in the 1890s when a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius drew attention to the possibility of a so-called ‘enhanced’ greenhouse effect triggered by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (Pralle 2009). In spite of his warning, it took another century before the issue of global warning was put on the international political agenda. The first remarkable step to combat climate change was taken in the early 1990s when more than 150 countries expressed their willingness to participate in the fight by singing the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (Pralle 2009). In 1988, with the help of the United Nations Environment Program and World Meteorological Organization, the scientific community took the lead in bringing the issue of climate change to the political agenda and established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Bolin 2007). Although it was a problematic question from the beginning how the scientific community and political institutions would be kept apart from each other, it was clear that close collaboration between the two groups was necessary. Since then, many countries have taken initiatives to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission, with different levels of success. However, prioritizing the issue of climate change and keeping it on the top of the international political agenda will be even more crucial in the upcoming years for various reasons (Pralle 2009). First of all, because climate change is a long-term problem and politicians cannot solve it with a single policy. And second of all because ongoing studies and scientific research are likely to shape not only our understanding of the problem but also the effectiveness and feasibility of any given solution (Pralle 2009). This means that national governments need to be committed not only now but also in the long term.

Experts in global governance

Generally speaking, experts have been gaining an increasingly significant role in global politics (Fischer 1990; Gianos 1974). Today’s complex and highly technical issues on the international agenda request policy-makers to interact with various actors, such as NGOs, civil society, expert groups, lobbyists and private sector representatives (Haas 1992; Dimitrov 2016; Stoutenborough et. al 2015). These often include monetary, macroeconomic, technological, environmental, health and population issues. Climate change, one of the most urgent problems

(6)

6 in modern times, has forced policy-makers to actively engage with expert groups, scientific communities and others who possess relevant information in that field (Dimitrov 2016; Gelden 2016). These expert groups help policy makers understand the problem at hand and can advise politicians how to deal with them. The IPCC is commonly known as one of the most important advisory bodies in international climate negotiations. It carries out various tasks such as assessing the science related to climate change, providing governments and policymakers with expert information, and putting forward adaption and mitigation strategies (Bruckner 2016). Thus, producing scientific knowledge puts the IPCC in a key role in international environmental policy making.

COP 21 & the Paris Agreement

The Panel played an active role in the 21st_{Conference of the Parties (COP21) that was}

hold in Paris between 30 November and 12 December, 2015. Political leaders gathered from all segments of the world in order to reach an agreement to combat climate change. The fact that almost 200 heads of state were present at the summit showed how much importance climate change has gained on the international agenda over the past years. The Conference counted more than 36,000 participants: “nearly 23,000 government officials, 9,400 representatives from UN bodies and agencies, intergovernmental organizations and civil society organizations, and 3,700 members of the media” (Earth Negotiations Bulletin, 2015, 1). These numbers show that climate change has become a salient issue and cooperation between various actors is needed to effectively deal with it (Falkner 2016). After two weeks of negotiations, the conference was concluded with a global accord, namely the Paris Agreement. The success of the Agreement can be attributed to its unique characteristic of combining both legally binding and non-binding obligations for all parties (Erbach 2016). It contains policy obligations for every country, and is widely seen as a compromise between developing and developed states. Furthermore, the Agreement consists of both bottom-up and top-down approaches to mitigate the effects of climate change (Dimitrov 2016; Falkner 2016). All Parties agreed that they would seek to hold the planet’s average air temperature increase well below 2° C degrees. Additionally, they agreed that each party shall communicate and maintain their intended nationally determined contributions (INDCs) that they want to achieve (Dimitrov 2016; Falkner 2016; Ourbak & Tubiana 2017). This is regarded as the voluntary dimension of the Agreement since states can determine how much they are willing to contribute to the collective mitigation effort. The positive outcome of the COP21 negotiations has been received as a major breakthrough in

(7)

7 international climate diplomacy. After years of deadlocks and conferences where no agreement was reached, the international community made the first step towards effectively and collectively handling the issue of climate change. Such an agreement, nevertheless, had to be based on the best available scientific knowledge which was provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hanekamp & Bergkamp 2016). The IPCC published its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) shortly before the conference in order “to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change” (Hanekamp & Bergkamp, 2016, 43). According to many, AR5 was the main source of scientific input for the 21st Conference of the Parties in Paris (Bruckner 2016). The IPCC, therefore, can be considered as a crucial actor in the environmental policy process that took place in Paris in 2015.

Aims of research

The aim of this paper is to answer the following research questions: To what extent did the IPCC and its Fifth Assessment Report influence the Paris Climate Conference in 2015? What explains the degree of influence of the IPCC? Academically speaking, this research is going to be exceptional as it will address the gap which has been overlooked by previous research. Former studies written on the topic tend to focus on the political success of the Paris Agreement, and devote insufficient attention to the participation of epistemic communities in the Climate Change Conference of 2015. Though scientific communities play a crucial role in the climate change realm by raising awareness, sending signals, influencing both policy-makers and the public (Ourbak & Tubiana 2017), little is known about the role of those expert groups that participated in COP21 in 2015 and how they influenced decision makers. Moreover, it is worth to investigate what role the IPCC played in the run up to COP 21, since the first part of AR5 was published in September 2013 and the climate negotiations took place in December 2015. Since to the best of my knowledge, no empirical study has focused on this thus far, it is truly beneficial to discover the role the IPCC played within this time period and also the extent to which it influenced policy makers. Previous studies have focused on the views of experts involved in the diplomatic and scientific efforts relating to climate change negotiations, and investigated the opinions and traits of negotiators and policy makers (Dannenberg, et. al 2017). Also, various studies in the past examined the information produced by the IPCC and contested whether it was the best available knowledge, such as the work of Hanekamp & Bergkamp (2016). However, earlier studies did not elaborate on the IPCC’s role before COP21 took place,

(8)

8 the way it engaged with policy makers and the extent to which the Panel was influential. This can be considered a gap in the existing literature that should not be neglected. This research will be beneficial for the academic community, since it will provide an empirical overview of all the IPCC outreach events and press conferences taking place between September 2013 and December 2015 and will analyze under what conditions the IPCC and its assessment report made an impact on politicians. Practically speaking, also important to keep in mind that climate experts and the Paris Agreement, which is described as “a monumental triumph for people and our planet” (Falker 2016, 1107) are expected to gain even greater significance in the future, as policy implementations are taking place (Hanekamp & Bergkamp 2016). For that reason, it is much needed to gain a better understanding on how the Paris Agreement was reached and what role the scientific community played in the policy making process that led to the formulation of the Paris Agreement.

Overview of the thesis

In order to answer the proposed research questions, the paper will carry out a qualitative case study analysis and will examine the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 21st Conference of the Parties held in 2015 in Paris. The second chapter will start by elaborating on the interaction between science and policy which has been a hotly debated topic in academia Furthermore, the epistemic community theory will be presented based on Peter Haas’ framework and the characteristics of such communities will be specified. The theory will emphasize that experts play a crucial role when dealing with complex issues and uncertainties politicians do not know how to tackle. This chapter will, moreover, narrow down its focus into environmental policy making and will study the significance of environmental scientific assessments. Based on the theoretical arguments, four theoretical expectations will be introduced. Also, various concepts are going to be determined in this section of the thesis, such as the term of epistemic community itself, but also usable knowledge, information, expert, policy problem, climate change, credibility, influence and political influence will be defined. Furthermore, this chapter will discuss previous studies written on the topic and will talk about the origin and organizational structure of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Also, the IPCC will be defined as an epistemic community and some critics will be mentioned as well. The last part of the chapter will tell a bit more about the conflicting national interests and the disagreement between the global North and South when dealing with the issue of human induced climate change.

(9)

9 Moving to chapter 3, I will introduce the overall methodological approach and the choice for process tracing will be justified. I also talk about the advantages and disadvantages of conducting a case based research, and about data collection. The data I gathered for this study came from a variety of sources which enabled me to tell a story from different perspectives. I organized my material into a chronological order that helps us to see what happened step by step within the chosen time frame. I decided to divide this time framework into three different phases that I name as follows: Preparation, Promotion and Negotiation. In this chapter, moreover, I elaborate on the operationalization of the basic concepts and explain how the analysis will be carried out. I introduce two very important concepts when conducting scientific research, namely reliability and validity, and also devote a paragraph on situating the researcher. Then, in chapter 4 the case analysis will be carried out. First I will provide an overview on the IPCC activities organized between September 2013 and December 2015 which will be demonstrated by a timeline as well. Then I will start by introducing the IPCC outreach events and press conferences in more details. After that I will go through the various events and happenings one by in a chronological order and analyze the extent to which the IPCC can be regarded as an influential actor in the various phases. I will wrap up the chapter by drawing some general conclusions based on the evidence, confirm the theoretical expectations and provide alternative explanations.

The final chapter is going to present the conclusion of the study which is three-folded. This research finds, first of all, that the epistemic community theory is too simplistic to be able to fully explain the complex interactions between the IPCC and policy makers. The IPCC cannot completely be separated from political actors, since the latter group is actively involved in the work of the IPCC and even shapes the reports of the Panel to some extent. Secondly, this thesis concludes that the IPCC has the most interactions with policy makers and exercises most influence on them during promoting the scientific information of AR5 (phase 2). Lastly, my study emphasizes that although the IPCC plays a crucial role in international environmental policy making by providing expert knowledge and is considered as the most credible institution in the field, its political influence is insignificant. The paper will end with the limitations of the research and recommending venues for further studies on the topic.

(10)

10

Chapter 2: Theoretical Framework

Science-policy interaction

The relation between science and policy has always been a highly contested topic in the fields of social and political sciences. Many authors argue that there is a close link between the two and they cannot fully be separated from each other (Alm 2003; Cortner 2000; Keller 2009). Science is used to frame issues, generate policy options, but also to identify needs for future investigation and development on the given topic (Selin & Eckley 2003). Collingridge and Reeve (1986) argue that scientific knowledge plays a very important role in the formulation of policy: science “can be relied upon with confidence in the process of policymaking. Knowing the truth, policymakers can decide how best to fulfill their objectives and can plot a course of action which has a high probability of achieving maximum returns” (p. 13). In this sense knowledge and science play a crucial role in policy making. This reasoning goes in line with what Weiss calls the problem solving model: “a problem exists and a decision has to be made, information or understanding is lacking either to generate a solution to the problem or to select among alternative solutions, research provides the missing knowledge. With the gap filed, a decision is reached” (Weiss 1979, 427). This indicates that scientific communities play an influential role in policy making by bridging the gap between science and policy. It also indicates that the policy makers’ decision can heavily be based on the scientific knowledge provided by the expert body. Furthermore, scientific groups are able to provide information that helps policy makers to choose the right policy instruments as a policy is formulated (Stoutenborough et al. 2015). Without the help of experts, policy-makers may jeopardize the future by making the wrong policy choice. Nevertheless, it is important to note that the interaction between experts and politicians is a complex one. Many would expect that because of the involvement of scientific methods, policy making evidently becomes more rational. In reality, however, it is not always the case (Haas 1992). Politicians have the rights to decide on issues which should be placed on the political agenda and also on how to deal with them. In that sense, one can argue that policy choices can be influenced by science but they tend to remain highly political. The close link between science and policy can also be interpreted in the light of complex issues. The international political system has become more complex and interconnected over the last 40 years (Ambrus et al. 2014; Haas 2014). Policy makers are facing

(11)

11 various wicked problems in different policy fields, and they often need to interact with scientific experts in order to effectively deal with those complex issues (Spruijt et al., 2014). In that sense, science can be seen as an active participant in policy making. More about complex issues and uncertainties will be written later in this chapter. First, however, I turn to the epistemic community framework.

Epistemic communities

Haas introduces the concept of epistemic community when referring to expert groups which he describes as “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competences in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (Haas 1992, 3). On the one hand, members of an epistemic community can have different professional backgrounds. On the other hand, however, all members of the community have to share various characteristics and beliefs. For instance, they have a shared set of normative and principled beliefs; shared causal beliefs; shared notion of validity; and a common policy enterprise. In his article, Haas explains it as follows (1992, 3):

“Although an epistemic community may consist of professionals from a variety of disciplines and backgrounds, they have (1) a shared set of normative and principled beliefs, which provide a value-based rationale for the social action of community members; (2) shared causal beliefs, which are derived from their analysis of practices leading or contributing to a central set of problems in their domain and which then serve as the basis for elucidating the multiple linkages between possible policy actions and desired outcomes; (3) shared notions of validity— that is, intersubjective, internally defined criteria for weighing and validating knowledge in the domain of their expertise; and (4) a common policy enterprise—that is, a set of common practices associated with a set of problems to which their professional competence is directed, presumably out of the conviction that human welfare will be enhanced as a consequence.”

This means that an epistemic community does not need to consist of natural scientists merely. Social scientists and professionals from any discipline are welcome to join the network as long as they have the same beliefs as the other members. What distinguishes epistemic communities from any other groups is the combination of having this set of shared causal and principled beliefs, a consensual knowledge base and common interests (Haas 1992). Haas argues that the interaction of these characteristics is crucial for the epistemic communities to be

(12)

12 socially and politically influential (2014). The internal consensus within the community gives the glue for collective action.

Ambrus et al. describe epistemic communities in a very similar way: epistemic communities are groups of experts who share some common beliefs and agree on what actions will benefit human welfare (2014). The authors underline that epistemic communities are transnational actors since their members often interact with others in different countries and/or institutional venues. Also, they claim that expertise needs to be organized in order to be influential, and epistemic communities are one organizational form (2014). Moreover, these scientific communities are accountable for simplifying a complex and ambiguous policy environment. As mentioned before, they help identify cause-and-effect relationships, they can help define state’s interests and are actively involved in policy formulations (Ambrus et al. 2014). Furthermore, the authors argue that involving experts in the policy making procedure will enhance the quality and increase the legitimacy of the process since experts provide neutral scientific solutions to technical problems. Regarding the role of experts, Ambrus et al. are on the opinion that experts fulfill a role of mediating between the production and application of knowledge, and while they pass on their knowledge they also actively engage with political actors (2014).

Dunlop refers to Peter M. Haas’s epistemic community framework as a tool used for discovering the influence of knowledge-based experts in international policy making (2009). More precisely, the epistemic community approach was designed to study decision making processes that are characterized by technical complexity and uncertainty (Dunlop 2009). Furthermore, because of the knowledge they possess, epistemic communities are able to frame issues for collective debate. Dunlop argues that epistemic communities fulfill the role of legitimizing and endorsing learning that already took place and they do not directly influence policy makers’ thinking. He also underlines that the level of influence attributed to epistemic communities is overstated in Haas’ approach, especially when it comes to their ability to shape decision makers’ behavior (2009). The set of beliefs that has been mentioned before and their highly specialized expertise is what makes epistemic communities unique and distinguishes them from others such as policy networks, lobby and interest groups. These characteristics also enable them to be called the main producers of knowledge in those issue areas that they are specialized on. Because of that, Dunlop refers to epistemic communities as the “principal teachers to decision makers” (2009, 292). Moreover, he talks about uncertainty as the root of any policy problem. Because of decision makers’ uncertainty, epistemic communities gain

(13)

13 entry to the policy arena. In this sense, the theory suggests that epistemic communities are influential actors in policymaking since they decrease uncertainties that may be present around a policy issue.

In his article, Cross returns to the epistemic community theory after a period of twenty years and argues that these transnational actors play an increasingly important role in our rapidly globalizing world: “they are a major means by which knowledge translates into power” (2013, 138). They want to benefit human welfare and they fully rely on their expertise, a characteristic that differentiates them from other actors participating in the policy process and seeking for influence. Furthermore, Cross’ study also concludes that uncertainty is a crucial scope condition that enables epistemic communities to be influential (2013). What is also important is the relationship that expert groups have with decision makers. The argument here is that since policy makers are looking for solutions to overcome different issues they cannot fully comprehend, they need to actively interact with experts. The epistemic community theory, furthermore, considers the science-policy interface as a process of delegation: member states ask a science panel for information about the given issue, and also about the limitations and risks involved with taking a particular approach to solve the problem. Then states learn from the experts and apply the inputs at the phases of policy drafting and implementation (Haas 2017). Therefore, one can argue that scientific communities play an influential role in policymaking since they provide credible knowledge that is needed to deal with the policy problem.

Complex issues & uncertainties

Because of the complexity of today’s policy making procedure, decision makers are facing increased uncertainties regarding “the nature of the policy environment, the consequences of their actions and the interests/preferences and even identity of their strategic partners” (Ambrus et al. 2014, 19). In order to overcome those uncertainties, they need to interact with actors who have the relevant information, such as scientists and expert groups. As mentioned before, however, framing and advice can come from experts, but the decision has to be made by politicians. Spruijt et al. (2014) define the role of scientific experts as advising policymakers on complex issues. They argue that an expert’s role is “influenced by the type of issues (simple or complex), the type of knowledge an expert has, the core values of an expert, the organization in which an expert works, the changing beliefs of experts and the context (e.g. the position of scientific knowledge and scientists within societies is changing, and calls for

(14)

14 public participation and transparency are stronger, especially for complex issues surrounded by uncertainty)” (Spruit et al. 2014, 22). This means that the more complex the policy issue is that they are dealing with, the more influence an expert body can have. Bolin also emphasizes that addressing complex issues without involving scientific analyses in the policy process would be a disaster (2007). It indicates that experts are more needed to participate in the policy making process when dealing with complex issues and uncertainties.

International environmental policy making

More specifically, in the case of international environmental issues, policy makers often lack the necessary information or insight, and they are unable to anticipate the long-term consequences of certain policy choices. This is what Haas refers to as uncertainties. Because of that, a close collaboration between political actors and scientists is highly needed. Although environmental issues are not new for humanity, it was considered as a local problem for many decades. As the issue gained more and more importance on the international political agenda, the idea become commonly accepted that science has a pivotal role in shaping our understanding of the problem and also that of possible solutions (Lidskog & Sundqvist 2002). Lidskog and Sundqvsit even argue that no valid action is possible in the field of environmental policy making without considering expertise as a partner in that process. According to Haas, policy-makers turn to experts for advice under conditions of uncertainty, since they do not have the knowledge that is necessary in order to solve certain problems (1992). In the field of international environmental policy making, decision makers are mostly not aware of the complex interplay of the components of the ecosystem. Therefore, they are unable to predict the long-term consequences of the measures designed to address the environmental issues at hand. Based on the above mentioned, it can be argued that scientific communities play an influential role in environmental policy making as they have the capacity to decrease uncertainties that characterize the issue at hand. In this sense if an issue is heavily interwoven with uncertainties, it is more likely that scientific groups from that field will be influential when dealing with the issue. Therefore, the first theoretical expectation of this research is formulated as follows:

E1: The degree of influence of expert bodies depends on the level of uncertainty

(15)

15 Ourbak and Tubiana, furthermore, underline that scientific communities focused on climate change are crucial actors as they raise awareness about the issue, send signals, and influence not only policy makers but also climate change negotiators and public opinion (2017). Bocking also emphasizes that effective communication is a crucial aspect for science to be influential (2004). In this sense it can be argued that communication between all these actors is key. Furthermore, expert groups and such communities emerge as demand for information arises. Haas emphasizes that members of such expert groups become strong actors both at national and international level since decision makers ask for their information and delegate responsibility to them (1992). In this case, what is crucial here is not only the knowledge that is being produced by the expert group, but also the way that knowledge is communicated towards policy makers. Scientific groups, therefore, have to actively engage with politicians if they want their voice and thoughts to be heard. Moreover, in his article Haas claims that scientific communities play different roles in policy making such as “articulating the cause-and-effect relationships of complex problems, helping states identify their interests, framing the issues for collective debate, proposing specific policies, and identifying salient points for negotiation” (Haas, 1992, 2). This suggests that scientific groups have influence on those involved in the policy making process since they can provide the needed scientific knowledge to deal with the given policy problem. Undoubtedly, scientific communities serve as an important channel through which scientific knowledge is applied in a practical manner. A basic precondition for this knowledge transmission is that the two parties need to be in contact with each other and engage in fruitful discussion about the topic. Therefore, it can be argued that expert groups’ influence is dependent on the intensity of their way of communicating with policy makers. In order to be influential, expert groups have to find their ways of reaching out to policy makers and exchange views on the given topic. This means that expert groups’ influence is dependent on the manner how it communicates with policy makers. Based on this line of reasoning, the second theoretical expectation of this paper goes like this:

E2: The degree of influence of expert bodies depends on the communication activities

of the expert bodies.

Environmental scientific assessment

Additionally, many issues that have been put on the international environmental policy agenda are recognized and comprehended merely through scientific research (Thrift 2006). Backstrand states that international scientific and advisory bodies play a crucial role in

(16)

16 providing input for global environmental negotiations (2003). Scientific assessments are increasingly demanded when dealing with technical issues such as “climate change, air pollution, ozone depletion, biodiversity and deforestation” (Backstrand 2003, 26). In other words, the science-policy interface can be described as follows: policy makers turn to scientists for knowledge and technical assistance, and scientists enlighten policy makers. Selin and Eckley argue, furthermore, that using scientific assessments in international environmental policy making is crucial (2003). Both science and assessments play an important role as they draw attention to environmental changes and provide policy relevant information. In their research, they investigate “how scientific assessments contribute to the shaping of an international environmental issue and the formulation of co-operative agreements” (Selin & Eckley 2003, 18). According to the authors, expert knowledge is being used in order to inform policy making. Additionally, Haas argues that organized scientific bodies can contribute to environmental negotiations through the provision of usable knowledge (2017). He defines usable knowledge as “the substantive form of knowledge that scientists and epistemic communities deliver. The concept helps illuminate the nature of the epistemic beliefs which states value. Usable knowledge involves the information being provided by the scientific community through institutions: it must be credible, legitimate, and salient” (Haas 2017, 56). Siebenhüner is also of the opinion that environmental scientific assessments have to meet three criteria in order to be helpful for the policy process: (1) they have to be salient to those who are going to make use of the report, (2) credible in terms of scientific standards and (3) legitimate regarding the way the assessment is designed (2014). Assessments meeting these requirements will be able to further the decision making and to provide decision makers with the necessary information on current and long-term consequences of climate change, and also on possible solutions and their consequences (Siebenhüner 2014). In his article, Gelden also emphasizes that the role of climate researchers and scientific advisers is not to act like political entrepreneurs and to spread positive thoughts about the future achievements of any environmental policy. Rather, they have the task to provide high-quality expertise and to critically assess both the risks and benefits of certain political efforts (2016). This also means that political actors are convinced that expert groups deliver credible information that can be useful when formulating a policy. The notion of credibility implies that scientists know the issue much better than politicians or other actors. For that reason, scientists are best able to decide what kind of questions need to be asked and how they can be answered when dealing with a complex issue (Bocking 2004). In this sense one can argue that the more credibility an

(17)

17 expert bodies has in the eyes of policy makers, the more influence they will exercise on policy makers. Therefore, the third theoretical expectation of this research suggests that:

E3: The influence of expert bodies depends on the credibility of their expertise.

Selin and Eckley, furthermore suggest that scientific information produced in the form of assessment reports has an important role in international environmental policy making, since it helps frame environmental issues, identify options and shape priorities (2003). It can “highlight environmental changes, frame issues, generate policy options, and identify needs for further research and development. In these functions, assessments can contribute to shape the interests and preferences of engaged participants, as well as prompt the concern of new participants” (Selin & Eckley, 2003, 19). This implies that scientific knowledge plays an influential role in international environmental policy making. Nevertheless, for science to be helpful in the context of international environmental policy making, it has to meet the expectations of the policy makers (Hanekamp & Bergkamp 2016). In other words, scientific communities have to take into consideration the specific interests of the actors involved in the policy making process. It may be more difficult to have an impact on those actors whose interests significantly differ from the message delivered by scientific group. In that case, it also means that the influence of expert groups depends on the political interests of the other parties involved in the policy process. If an expert group’s objective is in conflict with the interests of the key countries involved in the policy making, the expert group will be less influential, as countries will aim to reach an agreement that is more favorable for themselves, instead of considering the scientific basis. Important to note, however, that opposing interests are closely linked to two other terms that have been discussed before, namely uncertainty and credibility. Bocking argues that interests conflicting with that of the scientific groups tend to focus on problematic elements of the evidence presented by the expert group (2004). In other words, opposing interests often highlight uncertainties. By underlining those uncertainties and problematic parts, opposing interests aim to question the credibility of the scientific group (Bocking 2004). In that sense, the degree of influence expert groups can have on policy makers depends not only on how they communicate their findings towards others, and their credibility but also on the interests of countries involved the policy process. Based on this reasoning, the fourth theoretical expectation of the paper is formulated like this:

E4: The degree of influence of expert bodies depends on the nature of political

(18)

18

Concepts

In order to assess the influence of climate experts in environmental policy making, it is necessary to first define various concepts. As stated before, this paper uses Haas’s concept of epistemic communities. Although the definition of this concept has already been introduced in this paper before, it is worth mentioning it again: an epistemic community is “a network of professionals with recognized expertise and competences in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (Haas 1992, 3). Another concept that is interesting to elaborate on is expert. According to Ambrus et al., “an expert is a person who has, or is deemed or claimed to have, extensive skill or knowledge in a particular field and who is part of a wider group consisting of persons holding similar expertise. The group operates on the basis of a common knowledge base and shared values, and uses accepted methods to present its findings” (Ambrus et al., 2014, 12). Information is defined as “product of human interpretations of social and physical phenomena” (Haas, 1992, 4.). The next concept, policy problem can be defined as “a gap between a set of values (norms, goals) and an undesirable situation that can be bridged by government action” (Hisschemöller & Gupta 1999, 155). Also, it is worth to elaborate on what climate change means in this context. Climate change can be defined as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods” (Hanekamp & Bergkamp 2016). This definition is thus focused on human influence on climate. Credibility, furthermore, is defined as follows: “the extent to which science is recognized as a source of reliable knowledge about the world, and not simply as, say random observations, or an expression of the preferences of a particular interest group” (Bocking 2004, 164). Another concept that is highly relevant to this research is influence. “Influence is generally understood as an actor’s ability to shape a decision in line with her preferences, or, in other words, a causal relation between the preferences of an actor regarding an outcome and the outcome itself” (Dür 2008, 561). Symbolically: A  B. This means that actor A – either an individual or group – modifies the behavior of actor B – a decision maker in the policy arena – and this results in a modified decision. Arts & Verschuren underline in their work that such modification can be the result of the presence, thoughts and/or actions of actor A (1999). It means that actor A does not necessarily have to intervene in the decision making process, since his presence or thoughts –

(19)

19 as long as the decision makers are aware of them – can be a sufficient precondition for influence. In that sense, political influence is defined as follows: “the achievement of (a part of) an actor’s goal in the political decision-making, which is either caused by one’s own intervention or by the decision-makers’ anticipation” (Arts & Verschuren 1999, 413). Following this line of thought, it can be argued that it is rather crucial for an expert group to actively engage with policy makers and make them aware of the expert group’s thoughts and ideas about the policy issue they are dealing with.

Previous studies

As mentioned before, the topic of scientific communities’ involvement in environmental policy making and more specifically the IPCC, provide a popular subject for studies and researches in various fields. Besides the geographical representation of experts in the IPCC working groups, another topics frequently being examined has to do with the forms of disciplinary expertise enlisted in IPCC assessments (Hulme & Mahony 2010). The study conducted by Bjurström and Polk in 2010, for instance, can be regarded as one of the most thorough analysis on the theme. They categorized the 14,000 references cited in the Third Assessment Report into different disciplines. Interestingly, what they found was that less than 8% of the cited peer-reviewed literature in the Report was from social sciences (Hulme & Mahony 2010). Furthermore, Stoutenborough and his colleagues conducted a study to explore the perceptions of individual scientists on the collective influence they as a scientific community have on climate change related policymaking. Their findings suggest there are many relevant factors playing a significant role in the relationships between climate scientists and policymakers in the United States of America. The factors they specify in their studies are trust, contact, attitudes, specialization and demographics. They conclude that from the scientists’ point of view, contact with policy makers, trust and attitudes about climate change are crucial in shaping their relations with policy makers (Stoutenborough et al. 2015). Furthermore, Thrift conducted a study on the influence of scientists and scientific knowledge on the environmental foreign policy making process in Canada (2006). Based on Haas epistemic community framework, he argues that scientific communities produce knowledge in the first place. But besides that they also become active part of an international policy making bureaucracy, since by defining problems and shaping their solutions they increase their own influence (Thrift 2006).

(20)

20 Dannenberg et al. conducted their studies on the views of experts being involved in climate change science and diplomacy. They analyzed how experts perceived the success of climate negotiations (2017). Their study was based on a worldwide survey with 656 respondents representing more than 130 countries. Participants of the survey were recruited from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Respondents were asked to express their views on multiple past and recent outcomes of climate negotiations. Nevertheless, it is important to note that their study took place few months before the Paris Climate Conference in 2015. This means that the outcome of COP 21 was not included in their sample. In their analysis they took into account how often each expert participated in previous climate conferences and what role they played during those events. What they found was that individuals who were more actively involved in the negotiation process tended to be more optimistic. Interestingly, their results also identify two reinforcing effects: “a high degree of involvement changes individuals’ perceptions and more optimistic individuals are more inclined to remain involved in the negotiations” (Dannenberg et al. 2017, 1). This means that involvement in climate negotiations affects the degree of optimism, and simultaneously, optimism has an impact on the degree of involvement.

Gundersen also did a study on how scientists themselves understand their own role (2018). He interviewed 11 Norwegian climate scientists who were contributing authors of the IPCC. The experts had to answers both descriptive and normative questions on how they understood their role as scientists and how they experienced working for the IPCC (Gundersen 2018). The study found that “the separation of roles was a central concern to the interviewees, not only in the division of labor between experts and policymakers, but also between their role as IPCC experts and their role as citizens” (Gundersen 2018, 10). Also interesting to note, according to some of the participating scientists, the IPCC does not do a great job in terms of communications, and the lengthy and details reports are being produced to satisfy the scientists rather than the policy makers.

Livingstone wrote her study in 2018 on the knowledge politics of the IPCC, focusing on the period after the 2009 Copenhagen Conference. She argues that the IPCC has played a key role in how climate change gained importance as a global political problem. In her paper she “aims to critically examine how policy relevant knowledge is produced, negotiated, and stabilized in international climate politics” (Livingston 2018, 45). She considers the IPCC as a global stage where the knowledge politics of climate change takes place. She distinguishes

(21)

21 between frontstage and backstage where different performative interactions take place, and she claims that those interactions shape the relation between the processes of knowledge production and policy making at the international level (Livingston 2018). More generally speaking, she argues that science and politics cannot be separated from each other, instead, they are co-produced. Her study concludes that the relation between science and politics in the climate change realm is a complex one. The IPCC plays a crucial role in mediating between the two groups – scientific and political – however, the Panel is not only a tool for communications. It is actively involved in shaping the knowledge on climate change which is later used for political purposes (Livingston 2018). She also shows in her paper that the knowledge produced by the IPCC is often challenged by governmental representatives coming from different parts of the world. Governmental representatives are involved in the decision making over knowledge both at the frontsage and backstage which clearly illustrates the co-productive relationship between the Panel and political actors, as the author argue (Livingston 2018). Her study has three main conclusions: 1. Abstract, scientific representations of climate change has been favored. 2. The relation between science and policy is complicated, convoluted, and changing. 3. Decisions made backstage have an important role in how climate change is framed as a political problem. (Livingston 2018). She, however, also acknowledges that the role played by science in society cannot be taken for granted. She argues that in general, it is hard to measure how the IPCC influences climate related policy making (Livingston 2018). She is of the opinion that instead of focusing on how science can shape policy outcomes, it is more crucial to discover “how the IPCC has helped to create shared scientific understanding of climate change and provided a basis on which to frame discussions on climate change in political and societal arenas” (Livingston 2018, 20). According to her, the IPCC has played an enlightenment role by publishing assessments, bringing together knowledge, and gathering experts. Thanks to the Panel, the issue of climate change has become visible and knowable not only to a large political audience but also to the general public. (Livingston 2018).

Before moving to the research design part of this paper, I will briefly introduce the origin of the International Panel on Climate Change and its organizational structure. These can be crucial information when trying to understand the knowledge production processes of the Panel. Also, the epistemic community nature of the IPCC will be explained and some critics on that will be mentioned as well. At the end of this chapter, I briefly talk about the conflicting national interests in the field of international environmental policy making and the divide between the global South and North will be discussed too.

(22)

22

Origin and organizational structure of the IPCC

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 (Andresen 2014). The IPCC is considered as “one of the most concerted efforts of the international community to harness usable knowledge for addressing transboundary and global environmental threats” (Haas 2004, 580). The Panel considers its main goal as providing “policy-relevant but not policy-prescriptive information” through its Assessment Reports and Special Reports (Gelden 2016, 790). Another objective of the Panel is to put forward adaptation and mitigation strategies (IPCC 2014a).

The IPCC has been doing a significant job in the field: it unites more than 1,500 scientist coming from 195 different countries, and assesses thousands of scientific papers every year in order to inform policy makers on what is known about climate change (IPCC 2014a). Interestingly, most of these scientists work for the IPCC as volunteers. The Panel creates various ad hoc reports and technical papers, supporting materials such as guidelines and documentary materials (Haas 2004b; Siebenhüner 2014).Since its establishment, it has published five Assessment Reports, with the fifth one being finalized in 2014. (Moosmann et al. 2017). In the last 25 years, the IPCC reports have nurtured the discussions at the different COPs being held annually (Ourbak & Tubiana 2017). It means that the Panel plays a crucial role in providing credible information on the issue of climate change.

In terms of organizational structure (see Figure 1 below), the Panel consists of three working groups with a wide geographical representation among its members. Members of the working groups are chosen by governments, paying special attention to the candidates’ scientific reputation. Each working group has a different topic to work on: Working Group One (WG I), for instance, deals with questions related to atmospheric science. Working Group Two (WG II) on the other hand, addresses social and economic impact and adaptation measures. While Working Group Three (WG III) focuses on mitigation alternatives (Haas 2004b).

The working groups have to report to a plenary which is composed of government representative. They review the Summary Reports and are also responsible for approving the

(23)

23 Working Group Assessments and Special Reports (Haas 2004b). All reports, with the exception of the Summary Reports, have to be based on reviewed material coming from peer-reviewed journals. In this sense, the IPCC reports can be regarded as credible scientific information since they are produced by the best scientists and are based upon peer review. The Summary Reports which attract the greatest public attention, are written by the Working Group leaders, together with the lead authors and specially invited experts (Haas 2004b). The content and topics discussed in each chapter are drafted by the bureaus, and the reports themselves are prepared by the scientific committees. Once the subjects are approved, government representatives in the Plenary can scrutinize them.

As claimed by the Panel, the IPCC reports have been free from political influence: government representatives attend the final sessions when the summaries for policy makers are agreed on. However, they do so without compromising the basic scientific analyses in the supporting documents (Bolin 2007). Besides the three working groups, the IPCC also has a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories whose main responsibility is to develop methodologies for measuring emissions and removals. The Technical Support Units, furthermore, supports all of the above mentioned organizational bodies of the Panel in guiding the production of the various reports and products (IPCC 2014a).

Figure 1: Organizational structure of the IPCC (Source: IPCC website)

(24)

24

IPCC as an Epistemic Community & Critiques

The IPCC is commonly seen as a successful example of international epistemic community since it possesses the main characteristics such community needs to fulfill. These are independence, consensus and separation from political interests (Livingston 2018). Critiques however, have recently put the Panel in spotlight, questioning its influence as an epistemic community. Many argues that the IPCC is not able to keep science separated from politics which leads to a lack of political action eventually. The intergovernmental nature of the Panel can be regarded as problematic, not to mention the complicated processes of approvals all the reports have to go through. The IPCC relies on policy makers at various stages of the knowledge production process, namely at the scoping, author nomination, approval and review stages (Livingston 2018). In this regard, a linear understanding of the science-policy nexus is rather simplistic. In principle, the IPCC has been assigned to provide policy relevant knowledge which can then be used by politicians. This linear model, nevertheless, does not to work well, as Dahan-Dalmedico argues, since it cannot handle the interactions between politicians and scientists (2008). Other critics say the IPCC assessment reports put too much emphasize on human influence on climate change. Skeptics argue that the climate has always been changing and this phenomenon is not related to human activity (Bolin 2007). In some cases the opposition has been even harsher and stated that the IPCC was using dishonest procedures and tried to manipulate others by exaggerating the risks of human-induced climate change (Bolin 2007). Despite all these negative views, studying the case of the IPCC is still useful and even more needed, as it teaches us about the links between science and politics at the international level.

Political Interests

The UNFCCC recognizes that countries have common but differentiated responsibilities in fighting against climate change: developed countries should take the lead since, first of all, they are responsible for most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and second of all, they have more capacity to take action and support developing countries including financially, if needed (Erbach 2015). Nevertheless, human induced climate change is a rather disturbing element for those parties who are involved in future industrial developments. From their point of view, accepting human induced climate change as a fact and taking steps to protect the climate would lead to cutting off their activities especially in

(25)

25 those areas of the world which provide great opportunities for globalization such as China, India and Southeast Asia (Bolin 2007). This suggests that countries sitting around the climate negotiation table have different interests, and certain interests can conflict with that of the IPCC. In order to better represent their interests at COPs, parties tend to organize themselves into ‘like-minded’ groups (Alessi & van der Gaast 2016). Some of the most important groups are:

 Group of 77: which includes more than 130 developing countries and China  Alliance of Small Island States

 Least Developed Countries  European Union

 Umbrella Group: which represents developed countries outside of the EU  Environmental Group: which has 5 members, namely: Mexico, Liechtenstein,

Monaco, Switzerland and the Republic of North Korea

It is important to keep in mind that climate negotiations are based on consensus. It means that all participating countries have to be on the same side in order to reach an agreement (Alessi & van der Gaast 2016). This can be rather difficult as past examples of climate negotiations also show. Therefore, even one opposing country can block the agreement.

South vs. North

According to the theory, epistemic communities have the ability to help states define their interests. This, however, can be rather complicated in the case of global environmental policy making because of the huge divide between the global South and the global North. The IPCC has been many times rejected by national scientists in Southern areas of the world saying that it represents the interest of the North (Livingston 2018). Some studies show that the interaction between science and politics is generally less accepted in developing countries. In those countries the idea that an organization like the IPCC would impose scientific methods and processes on a country is regarded as a way of exercising control. Many have even used the term of environmental colonialism to describe this phenomenon (Livingston 2018). This clearly shows that the global and local interests are in conflict with each other when it comes to dealing with the issue of climate change.

(26)

26 To some extent, nevertheless, the IPCC has been able to avoid the challenges triggered by meditating between science and politics: the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) has played a more responsive, mediatory role (Beck & Mahony 2018a). The SBSTA “serves as a buffer between the IPCC and governments by encouraging the deconstruction of scientific assertions through each country’s veto-wielding power and the conflict surrounding open questions, thus helping to deflect some of the criticism initially levelled at the IPCC” (Dahan-Dalmedico 2008, 79). Thus, the SBSTA has made it possible for developing countries to raise their voices and if needed, express their disagreements with the recommendations brought forth by the IPCC.

In their article Pearce, Mahony and Raman (2018) refer to authors who describe this controversy of different interests faced by the IPCC. According to them, the IPCC framed Southern forests as empty space which should suck up the carbon pollution produced by the North. Also, the IPCC has been accused of valuing Southern lives at lower levels than Northern lives (Pearce, Mahony & Raman 2018). These accusations might be simple exaggerations, however, they clearly demonstrate how difficult it is to deal with conflicting interests at the global scale. Moreover, it also points out that scientific knowledge may not be neutral, therefore, the IPCC is expected to face dilemmas about how to approach environmental issues in a way that is credible, legitimate and salient to all parties involved. More on the conflicting interest will be written in the analytical chapter. Now I am going to introduce my research design.

Chapter 3: Research Design

Overall methodological approach

This research closely examines the case of the Paris Climate Change Conference in 2015 (COP 21) and the influence of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It builds upon Peter M. Haas’ theoretical framework of epistemic community and provides an empirical approach to the topic. This paper seeks to answer the following questions: To what extent did the IPCC and its Fifth Assessment Report influence the Paris Climate Conference in 2015? What explains the degree of influence of the IPCC? The main conclusion drawn from this study

(27)

27 is three folded: First, it finds that the epistemic community framework is too simplistic to be able to fully explain the complex relationship between the IPCC and environmental policy makers. Second, this paper concludes that the IPCC engages with and influences policy makers throughout different phases with different intensity: the IPCC has the most interactions with policy makers and exercises most influence on them in phase 2. Third, I argue that although the IPCC plays a crucial role in international environmental policy making and is considered as the most credible institution in the field, its political influence is rather insignificant. A mentioned before, the three different phases being studied in this paper are Preparation (phase 1), Promotion (phase 2), and Negotiation (phase 3). Phase 1 covers the period of time when the different parts of the IPCC report were being prepared and published. Phase 2 considers the time period right after the final assessment report was published and the Panel started promoting the findings of the paper in the run up to COP 21, while phase 3 represents the two weeks when the climate conference was held in Paris in 2015. This research finds that the IPCC is most influential in phase 2 and has the least impact in phase 3. However, in order to gain a better understanding on how climate change knowledge is produced and what influence it has on decision makers, it is crucial that all three phases are studied together.

My goal with this paper is to address the social science audience, and more specifically those who are interested and involved in the work of the IPCC. The type of questions that I raise and the approach I take, require a qualitative methodology. I am aware that my analysis is contextual as it is concerned with the qualities, processes and meanings of the content of the case that I am studying, still, I hope that the underlying dynamics I discover in this particular case, will be useful outside of the climate change realm. It can be problematic to apply high levels of objectivity and neutrality to qualitative research. On the other hand, nevertheless, one should not believe that qualitative studies are not scientific. Those types of studies are strong because of their carefulness, reliability and openness. In the following section I am going to specify the method and materials being used for the research.

Method

Perri 6 and Bellamy describe method “as the set of techniques recognized by most social scientists as being appropriate for the creation, collection, coding, organization and analysis of data” (2012, 2). Therefore, methods can be seen as tools and procedures for identifying what is important in order to answer the proposed research question. The difficult part, however, as Alvesson and Kärreman argues, is not the production of description (2011). What people say

(28)

28 and do can easily be described by interviews, observations or other methods. When the researcher nevertheless, wants to offer a more abstract theoretical understanding and to suggest insights and explanations, he might run into more difficulties and obstacles (Alvesson & Kärreman 2011). In this case, empirical research can be particularly useful since it will complement the theoretical elements with more practical insights. “Empirical research refers to a strong interest in gathering or constructing empirical material that says something about what goes on out there – in the social life existing outside of the research practices of academics or available texts” (Alvesson & Kärreman 2011, 4). The general assumption regarding empirical work and qualitative research is that carefully collected and analyzed data can help the researcher to understand underlying mechanisms and also to develop theories.

In order to assess the influence of the IPCC, this research is going to use a small-N within-case study design and the method of process tracing. Process tracing is a data analysis method for identifying, validating and testing causal mechanism within a case that is often used for studying decision making processes. Therefore, it can be considered the right choice for this research, since it will allow me to closely examine what role the IPCC and its Fifth Assessment Report have played during and prior to the Paris Climate Conference in 2015 and the extent to which the Panel influenced policy makers involved in the Conference. Process tracing is commonly seen as a useful tool to uncover the steps by which causes effect outcomes (Dür 2008). In this paper, it will be used to reveal the influence of expert bodies in environmental negotiations. This qualitative method will enable me to study the main concepts and terms. Since the causal relationship being studied may be better described and explained by words than it could be by numbers, process tracing is the right choice of method. It enables me to discover and study various pieces of evidence that are relevant to the central argument. It will also provide both the researcher and readers with an in-depth knowledge and understanding of the case.

Case based research

As already mentioned above, I am going to do a qualitative analysis. Although in that type of research it is more common to use inductive approaches to develop new theories, deductive research should not be neglected either. Deductive research starts with a statement or hypothesis and aims to test that statement or hypothesis before any data is being created or collected (Perri 6 & Bellamy 2011). On the one hand, deductive research can be rigid since it is limited by the hypothesis. On the other hand, however, it has the advantage of being based

(29)

29 upon previous work: “it is explicitly designed to be cumulative in relation to existing knowledge” (Perri 6 & Bellamy 2011, 10). Since I am interested in developing a better understanding of a given case, I will do a case-based research. A within case or single case study design uses one case as the unit of analysis, therefore it involves a large number of observations on the topic being studied. This type of design can also serve to falsify theories. In this sense, it reveals the richness and complexity of the case, which hopefully my study will demonstrate as well. Other advantages of within case analysis is that it is more sensitive to temporal chronology and enables the researcher to study interactions between multiple factors. Because it does not follow a strict structure, within case study design can be considered as flexible. Moreover, it is commonly used to tease out how causal processes work (Perri 6 & Bellamy 2011). Also important to mention that I will have the possibility to gain a great familiarity with my cases which eventually might lead to new insights and theoretical ideas. According to Perri 6 and Bellamy, the strength of a case based research is that it is able to capture the full significance of complex data and can “encourage iterative dialogue between theory and empirical evidence” (2011, 4). Among its weak points, however, it has to be underlined that case based research is unable to analyze large number of cases, and generalizing based on one case or a small number of cases can be rather problematic (Perri 6 & Bellamy 2011).

The case of IPCC and COP 21 was selected to test the theoretical expectations of this research, since it has been a significant climate conference in recent years that led to a successful outcome. The IPCC is considered as an important player in international environmental governance which gained great significance since its establishment. Although the Paris Climate Conference took place 4 years ago, its aftermath can be felt even today. What is more, many are of the opinion that the Paris Agreement will be even more relevant in the coming years as we are entering the phase of policy implementation. By carrying out case based research on this topic, I will be able to express and communicate my knowledge of this complex case in a way that helps others to make sense of it. In order to do that, I will be using chronology as an organizing framework. This means that I guide my audience through the case step by step and shed light on what happened next. Explaining the case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Climate Conference is possibly through understanding generative mechanisms. A mechanism is defined as “the force that is responsible for how things happen: for example, how an independent variable works on a dependent one” (Perri 6 & Bellamy 2011, 2). Moreover, mechanisms focus on underlying causations and aim to answer

The Role of Expertise in International Environmental Policymaking: The case of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2015 Paris Climate Conference