Global environmental governance has long played a significant role in how environmental policy becomes enacted around the world. In this blog post, we discuss the role of international environmental bodies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES), and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), to understand better the role of information in these decision-making bodies, and how politics and power can influence decisions in these high-level governance bodies. First, we provide an overview of three recent publications on the topic of international governance at the interface of science and policy, and then we reflect on emerging themes.
Solving complex problems in intergovernmental bodies
Global environmental governance forums such as the IPCC, IPBES, and UNCCD bring together advisers, policy-makers, and scholars at the science-policy interface (SPI) to facilitate evidence-informed decision making. SPIs influence global environmental governance by providing science-backed recommendations, which are frequently mobilized into national policy debates. In practice, these interfaces operate according to a complex network of actors working to solve wicked problems and are organized according to highly formalized governmental structures (De Donà, 2024). Thus, “science” is only one of the factors that influences decision-making in these forums, resulting in challenges for the production of evidence-based policy.
Although SPIs are designed to be policy-relevant while not policy-prescriptive, in practice, the separation between scientific assessment and political decision-making is blurred, and science can become politicized or influenced by power dynamics. Governments control the selection of experts who conduct scientific assessments in many SPIs, influencing which voices are heard. Furthermore, governments help to set SPI mandates, which can prescribe the kinds of findings that are expected. Power dynamics are also inherent to global SPIs. For example, due to existing inequities within their intergovernmental structure, and because developed nations tend to hold more resources and capacities to participate in these processes, SPIs tend to favour Global North interests and western science, resulting in symbolic inclusion of social sciences and Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) rather than substantive integration. Different SPI models within global environmental governance can also achieve varying levels of effectiveness. The IPCC, for example, has seen success in agenda setting, but the complexity of the issue it tackles leads to complications in national implementation. Conversely, the UNCCD tackles land degradation and desertification, an issue farther down many governments’ priority lists. Because of this ranking, the UNCCD uses a smaller model while still including regional representation, policymakers, and scientists, and as a result has produced tangible policy recommendations. SPIs are subject to contextual complexity, and identifying patterns across SPIs can help to develop theories for better frameworks to construct SPIs (De Donà, 2024).
Research collaboration at the global science-policy interface
In exploration of inequalities that shape research collaborations in global science-policy interfaces, Tetley and Koch (2024) conducted a critical discourse analysis of texts composed by researchers and international organizations such as the United Nations that contribute to the “global discourse of science for sustainability” (p. 1). In their analysis, the authors classified each text that they studied under one of three narratives that each reflect a different way of thinking about the role of power, knowledge, and decision-making in research collaborations.
The first narrative, which the authors called the deficit narrative, purports that “less developed countries are in need of remedy” and therefore would be the main actors who would benefit from research collaboration (Tetley & Koch, 2024, p. 4). Collaborative research undertaken using a deficit narrative aims to transfer resources such as knowledge, skills, and economic and technological resources from Global North actors to Global South actors. In their analysis, the authors found that various texts published by the Sustainable Development Solutions Network as well as United Nations bodies contain the deficit narrative.
The second narrative, referred to as the innovation narrative, advances the notion that innovation is the “main purpose and intended outcome” of research collaboration (Tetley & Koch, 2024, p. 5). Similar to the deficit narrative, the innovation narrative portrays the relationship between the Global North and South as one in which countries in the Global South lag significantly behind those in the North who are at the “forefront of innovation” (Tetley & Koch, 2024, p. 5). However, while the deficit narrative views research collaboration as a tool for targeting the needs of developing countries, the innovation narrative views the “innovation and technological advances” that will be produced by research collaboration as a benefit to all societies (Tetley & Koch, 2024, p. 5). According to the authors, this narrative is found in texts such as the Global Sustainable Development Report and the Commission on Science and Technology for Development report. This focus on mutually beneficial research programs might support more equal partnerships and lead to more trust in research collaboration.
The third narrative, the transformation narrative, asserts that the central purpose of research collaboration is to promote socio-ecological change. Under this narrative, researchers highlight the impact that the unequal distribution of knowledge and learning between the Global North and South has on research collaborations and emphasizes the need to change how global research is structured altogether. Specifically, the narrative encourages this structural change through “overcoming disciplinary, geographic and social boundaries, as well as unidirectional flows of knowledge and resources” (Tetley & Koch, 2024, p. 5). In the article, the authors discuss how this narrative is found in the UNESCO Higher Education report. In shaping the science-policy interface in international environmental governance, it is essential that these forums turn from deficit models to consider other models that support and advance more equitable processes and outcomes for researchers around the world.
Governance of the high seas
Blasiak and Claudet (2024) provide an overview of the specific struggles facing the governance of the high seas, and they highlight the importance of these complex spaces for the future of the planet. The ocean covers more than two-thirds of the earth’s surface and it contains unique biodiversity that is still being discovered today. While currently viewed as a lawless area, the high seas or areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) also contain an opportunity for the international community to come together to establish commonalities and laws. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) outlined the rights each nation has toward the ocean. However, these rights are subject to the laws of local jurisdictions. The high seas are governed through a patchwork of intergovernmental conventions and private sector governance. This system is an inherent barrier to a holistic approach critically needed to ensure sustainability in our ocean.
Blasiak and Claudet (2024) highlight several gaps in the current governance of the high seas. The laws of the high seas are sometimes binding, sometimes not. Some are enforced globally and others locally. On top of this patchwork, a few other gaps emerge: Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) and Marine Protected Areas (MPA) are underused to conserve and protect marine areas. Technological advances are being made but not shared within the international community. As noted in the previous section, inequity is also a concern for developing nations to ensure that processes and outcomes of conservation projects are being felt by “have-not” nations.
The UN has been working on a mandate called the BBNJ Agreement (Agreement under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea on the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction) for the past 20 years to cover some of these gaps. In 2023 the Agreement was signed by 80 states. However, to be implemented the Agreement needs to also be ratified by at least 60 states and as of this post only twenty-one have ratified it. The BBNJ Agreement creates a singular mechanism for the transfer of marine genetic resources for the betterment of all humankind. It defines and encourages the usages of MPAs and EIAs. It will also establish a committee that will address technology transfer for addressing marine conservation concerns. While the future of the BBNJ Agreement is uncertain, Blasiak and Claudet argue that it is essential to advance more cohesive ocean governance.
Themes across the readings
International mandates and the conditions for success
Although each reading reflected separately on the efficacy of international mandates, three conditions for success were identified in these evaluations. First, to avoid the harmful exclusion of Global South perspectives in global decision-making, international mandates operate best when there are balanced power dynamics. Second, to promote continuous compliance from nations and other actors, international mandates work best when there are political or economic incentives in place to award compliance and punish non-compliance. Third, to ensure that international targets are practical for all nations, not just those in the Global North, an international mandate is most effective when every signatory has the capacity to implement it.
Global North/South divide
A key theme among the readings is that Global North governments primarily shape international governance, and their priorities are not aligned with the needs of the Global South. Environmental targets are set that are often unattainable without the resources available to wealthier nations, and while Global South countries may now have a seat at the table, their influence has yet to be meaningfully seen.
Organizational structure
Disagreement between the authors cited in this post became apparent in the discussion sections of their publications. Robert Blasiak and Joachim Claudet (2024) suggested that one large organizational structure should be used for conservation efforts because smaller structures are fragmented. In contrast, Matteo De Donà (2024) stated that larger organizations are cumbersome and inefficient to meet the SPI needs of local jurisdictions. As such, it is apparent that when considering international relations, the size and scope of an organization should be carefully considered so that its structure aligns with its goals.
References
Blasiak, R., & Claudet, J. (2024). Governance of the high seas. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 49, 549-572. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-environ-011023-022521
De Donà, M. (2024). The practice of bridging science and policy. In Science-policy interfaces in global environmental governance: Myths, challenges and opportunities (Chapter 4, pp. 51-73). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-68260-5_4
Tetley, C., & Koch, S. (2024). Narratives of research collaboration for sustainability at the global science-policy interface: A vehicle for inequality or transformation? Environmental Science & Policy, 155, 103708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103708
Authors: Alec Brooks, Jesse Lewis, and Sean Lowe
This blog post is part of a series of posts authored by students in the graduate course “Information in Public Policy and Decision Making” offered at Dalhousie University.
Tags: Marine & Ocean Issues; Public Policy & Decision-Making; Science-Policy Interface; Student Submission
