Objectives for Stakeholder Engagement in Global Environmental Assessments

Martin Kowarsch,Jennifer Garard

doi:10.3390/su9091571

Abstract

Global environmental assessments (GEAs) are among the most large-scale, formalized processes for synthesizing knowledge at the science–policy–society interface. The successful engagement of diverse stakeholders in GEAs is often described as a crucial mechanism for increasing their legitimacy, salience and credibility. However, the diversity of perspectives on the more precise objectives for stakeholder engagement remains largely unclear. The aims of this study are to categorize and characterize the diversity of perspectives on objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs; to explore differences in perspectives within and between different stakeholder groups and categories; and to test whether the more practical prioritization and selection of objectives in GEAs can be linked to deliberative policy learning as a higher-level rationale for stakeholder engagement. For these purposes, we conduct a grounded theory analysis and a keyword analysis of interview material and official GEA documents relating to two GEAs: UN Environment’s Fifth Global Environment Outlook and the Working Group III contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report. Based on the analysis, we identify six categories of objectives and present as hypotheses promising ways forward for prioritizing and characterizing objectives for stakeholder engagement in GEAs, as well as potential reasons for the differences between perspectives on objectives. This study draws attention to the need for future GEA processes to have more explicit discussions on the objectives for stakeholder engagement, as well as the importance of moving towards increasingly deliberative and inclusive assessment processes more broadly.

Highlights

Navigating the interface between scientific expertise, policy-making and society more broadly is a crucial concern for environmental governance
The aims of this study are to categorize and characterize the diversity of perspectives on objectives for stakeholder engagement in Global environmental assessments (GEAs); to explore differences in perspectives within and between different stakeholder groups and categories; and to test whether the more practical prioritization and selection of objectives in GEAs can be linked to deliberative policy learning as a higher-level rationale for stakeholder engagement
This study focuses on four prominent methods employed in GEAs to engage with stakeholders which span the entire GEA process and cover all major stages at which interactions occur: (1) the scoping meeting at the outset of the GEA to determine its outline and guiding questions; (2) the regional consultations which take place partway through a GEA and contribute to content development; (3) the review process which takes place towards the end of the process and opens up draft text to comments from a very wide diversity of actors; and (4) the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) negotiation meeting, where the contents of the summary document are discussed and negotiated line-by-line by government representatives from around the world (Table 1)

Summary

Introduction

Navigating the interface between scientific expertise, policy-making and society more broadly is a crucial concern for environmental governance. Elaborate and legitimate mechanism currently in place for navigating this interface is the collaborative synthesis of policy-relevant knowledge in global environmental assessments (GEAs). GEAs are large-scale, formalized processes through which scientific and other types of knowledge is assessed and synthesized in order to inform policy-making processes at multiple scales. The major goals of GEA processes are to frame and analyze the drivers, impacts and potential solution pathways associated with global environmental problems in a legitimate, credible and salient manner, and to communicate these findings to their target audiences [1,2,5]. GEA processes require the involvement of a large number of stakeholders who participate in a many different roles, and who often bring into the process a variety of different perspectives on the issues being assessed [10]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion