Abstract
Scientific advisory committees (SACs) are a critically important part of global environmental policy. This commentary reviews the role of SACs in six global and regional environmental regimes, defined here as the set of rules, norms, and procedures that are developed by states and international organizations out of their common concerns and used to organize common activities. First, SACs play a critical role in putting issues on the political agenda and the creation of an overarching regime. Second, the effectiveness of a given SAC and the associated regime is highly variable. Third, there is also considerable variation in the extent to which the regime is driven by an overarching scientific consensus, for example, high in the case of climate change, lower in the case of whaling. Fourth, the role of science in a given regime is also a function of whether the problem being addressed is relatively benign or more malign, that is to say, marked by deep political disagreements (i.e., climate change). Finally, the cases examined here suggest that the institutional design of the SAC matters and can influence the overall effectiveness of the SAC and by extension, the regime, but it is seldom decisive.
Highlights
The Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission (IWC) is but environmental policy
We examine the establishment of international environmental agreements and associated scientific committees: what actors and interests are needed for them to emerge? Last, we reflect on the lessons that can be learned with regards to their role and influence
Some of the conditions needed for scientific expertise to influence decision-makers and enhance the effectiveness of international environmental regimes are addressed in this commentary
Summary
There are various approaches to the study of the science–policy nexus. One such method is to elevate the status and the influence of science by making it appear more legitimate via a broad participatory approach. In order to achieve this, they recommend diversifying the key stakeholders by inviting private actors and members of the broader public in the assessments of a variety of scientific disciplines This approach asks that both normative and political elements be accepted in the decision-making process.[5]. Regarding the nature of the problem, the simple assumption is that, all things being equal, the higher our knowledge and consensus on a topic, the higher the likelihood of a regime with increased effectiveness This subsequently impacts the problem-solving capacity of a regime through its involvement in the design of the science–policy nexus and the question of independently developed research as compared to those embedded in politics. There is a need to create a balance between scientific integrity and political involvement to ensure that scientific experts recognize the needs of decisionmakers and present legitimate scientific results that can be utilized effectively in practice.[3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
